IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@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 7CE4D120098 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 V3GLzgeiQ0SA for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (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 A5E8B120088 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id 205so17267535pfw.2 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=SpisrL0hvrCnJA0C125xk58F44MofX/QC9gPMVVU2gM=; b=OUOrIUEZlXDmBbzRJpb9WSFX7vdcUqsgqq2PLH787hgXSLbRhFjRJGyvDbRY4TGv9j leOc3DB5HzKqy8bR3l/zsKp8swzeKBb6MaJMkEG+hgEaJmH/AvR8jZoy8iO0IOxTlCfl tzAb5BRShXFy6FDpgH7EWfSHLC9dZPqCw4W0Ll8DkWMSEh4qmmCyxduX1+K3bL1oDHH5 2cSQiL5noP0UfUHmI3NQ40+VXcmv+UsgeZRYNHRpD9KWY2XS6pxt5/87M+JNB9K/lGnv iFir+KKI+Qne83kLkJw37LrfnNRVzaCfzuB2cf9EbbsUywC3+eIydCytbR/Q3tb87ad3 Vzmw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=SpisrL0hvrCnJA0C125xk58F44MofX/QC9gPMVVU2gM=; b=m2iSPB+vTXvFs+IHMUZb6xZIdqOKuIYlXDmOk94NhBvywsIQbeukW54cAK9c+QvhLO svBtFyc6xcuBlnHiDo8ANicvKNrzrUHPKlIXgqUzyPF9mr/Uma1nRal2o+znfZ+K1Z3a H5Kooh5dY27I8qtU/Vk7lSNJT9hZsKNPPd5x9dvg2KIIHv22b8E11tN4qIUF1aHINYxO L5+uP8L4sYn7+c/+aM4NYplUCjGKPpMINGI+Vd3VZYG0cCw3utFPV9r2mdncpPKYlhYH ZvsyTd+RZkRcnRP1Fu0R5LihEhkOK8d0wFxNg0BjrB5CRvh0xq7E+GUnn16e7ErYAtlK pFqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWDOQ1nZVs0GU8T99a2U/KAba03zaOw/8G3r6DF+hxJo3I12mjO uLpvRtJvuQ+tuygeirYQww0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyL+xWhMp9PTZr8aJZIeAfndvFA40LP7ZIVuLsAT5yMki7GOxL06Y701clXIYYTTHGgAHGkUQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6c43:: with SMTP id h64mr16619115pgc.106.1568347999487; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5600:5020:c9f0:407:a271:17c3? ([2601:647:5600:5020:c9f0:407:a271:17c3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u4sm24143877pfh.55.2019.09.12.21.13.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <F3D9A351-7A4E-462A-95FF-C9A6AA1E2C5B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BA2B4859-955D-415A-8D87-3C271B219634"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:13:39 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4858942C-0B22-40EE-867E-23F24BA54B34@cisco.com>
Cc: Reshad Rehman <rrahman@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf. org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
To: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
References: <9ECC2E5C-E87E-4859-9DA8-E8E9403DF759@cisco.com> <C44550AC-F6E0-4351-9958-CB9144C9F23A@cisco.com> <4858942C-0B22-40EE-867E-23F24BA54B34@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Pq4VP3xFjSsBHGpxugB-sEhOpPQ>
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 04:13:23 -0000

Hi Carlos,

> On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, short and useful.
> 
> I only have one comment in regards to:
> 
>    It is also worthy of note that even if an implementation can function
>    with larger transport PDUs, that additional packet size may have
>    impact on BFD scaling.  Such systems may support a lower transmission
>    interval (bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval) when operating in large packet
>    mode.  This interval may depend on the size of the transport PDU.
> 
> Instead of (or in addition to) a lower transmission interval, why not add flexibility to not *have* to send large packets every packet, and instead send every n paks or so?

Wouldn’t that have a problem that one packet lost every n packets would still keep the BFD session up?

Cheers.

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Carlos.
> 
>> On Sep 9, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com <mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> BFD WG, reminder that WGLC is ongoing for this document.
>>  
>> Regards,
>> Reshad.
>>  
>> From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com <mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>>
>> Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM
>> To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets
>>  
>> BFD WG,
>>  
>> As was mentioned at IETF105, this document is stable and there was an interop test done between FRR and Junos VMX.
>>  
>> Please provide comments/feedback on the document. The deadline for last call is September 13th.
>>  
>> Regards,
>> Reshad & Jeff.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email