IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com> Sun, 21 October 2018 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <naiming@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 B5318130EA0 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 MeUCPXE5p3ZT for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4FD8130DF7 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17348; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540159924; x=1541369524; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=/HWCekWpynIfKOgNCvCGtdw0RoVBTOEyN4Fhkajfo4M=; b=K59YNWiBPC48sULEn8dT0PK+8xAKtQd/kbubbKgRDyUsvqJyLY2p0D+0 6E1Oi4R05qAnZpYNHhc45FPKh37o7/W0FP6glaHsME13xvWTCIgnPRtCB lBPZol9Kxgow4udWQ1t6zQfQrUy24ytZlkfSCb0hJEkpk7qdU9cgzFHlq U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AYAABu+cxb/4kNJK1jGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBVAIBAQEBCwGBDXdmfxUTCoNrlDCBaCWRTYVcgWYLAQEjhEkCF4RxITcKDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhToBAQEEI1YQAgEIEQQBASgDAgICMBQJCAIEDgWDIQGBHWQPpFCBLoQ+QD2EUgWLUheCAIEQKAwTgTeBFYMbAgMBgSoBEgFFEIJNMYImAo41hhKKAQkChmCKEBeBUoRziWmMWIleAhEUgSYzImRxcBU7KgGCQYsZhT5viUmBH4EfAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,409,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="189655485"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Oct 2018 22:11:56 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9LMBuQo015975 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:11:56 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 17:11:55 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 17:11:55 -0500
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
CC: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@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+ggAHIywA=
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:11:55 +0000
Message-ID: <90B9205E-CBD8-4779-96D1-2D15BD1F7E24@cisco.com>
References: <E052CA19-228D-4271-BF9E-7499255E7C53@cisco.com> <7332e35048d34d44a65ea70df409699c@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7332e35048d34d44a65ea70df409699c@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.44.153]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_90B9205ECBD8477996D12D15BD1F7E24ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/P2hNFupqgHVYImX3l2lGIgBG3o8>
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: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:12:07 -0000

It probably should say “the payload size MAY be increased to this value and it is
not recommended for a BFD session to always use the large size packet for padding.
How frequent the large size packet being used is application specific”.

for the variety of encaps, the internal application probably can deduced from a
BFD one into their own as long as we have a number for path MTU.

thanks.
- Naiming

On Oct 20, 2018, at 5:14 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com<mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> wrote:

I have some concerns.

It has been stated that there is a need for sub-second detection of this condition – but I really question that requirement.
What I would expect is that MTU changes only occur as a result of some maintenance operation (configuration change, link addition/bringup, insertion of a new box in the physical path etc.). The idea of using a mechanism which is specifically tailored for sub-second detection to monitor something that is only going to change occasionally seems inappropriate. It makes me think that other mechanisms (some form of OAM, enhancements to routing protocols to do what IS-IS already does ☺) could be more appropriate and would still meet the operational requirements.

I have listened to the Montreal recording – and I know there was discussion related to these issues (not sending padded packets all the time, use of BFD echo, etc.) – but I would be interested in more discussion of the need for sub-second detection.

Also, given that a path might be used with a variety of encapsulations, how do you see such a mechanism being used when multiple BFD clients share the same BFD session and their MTU constraints are different?

Thanx.

   Les


From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 6:06 PM
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

Hello BFD WG,

We have received an adoption request for “BFD encapsulated in large packets”.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-bfd-large-packets/

The adoption call will end on Friday Nov 9th.

Please send email to the list indicating “yes/support”  or “no/do not support”. If you do not support adoption, please state your reasons.

Regards,
Reshad & Jeff.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email