RE: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim

"Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com> Mon, 16 February 2015 15:48 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 F1A7A1A88DA for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:48:38 -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 xXwfrA2kiyRm for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 122331A88C3 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:48:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16836; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1424101711; x=1425311311; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=A+ZNvztsnKHGs/5Sd4ob6Gr3smUTy9plDobdnYUe4V4=; b=UfA782Wse2actgA1jhMiBpvYEQRJoUKiyhZASvFMzLJNEyS8MnP2jug9 ZEa9WHxCqpQqtRXbJbrfbVz56kMAcZ2t5dQegKmbDK9luBTOu1v4mcGph k3YXjO+WmsL6oa/FEDOVtvkjBOF2CxyRcY3lK2NH/sojVqQfhWWBOUw3A E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: At0GAKkQ4lStJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABcgkNDUloEgn+wCY1DgXCFbwIceUMBAQEBAQF8hAwBAQEDASMKTAULAgEIEQQBAQEKHQMCAgIfERQJAwUCBA4FCIgRAwkIDbZZkRkNhUYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXiwyCQ4F5DSQGAYJoLoEUBY1MgWyDV4QagxaLOYYEIoNub4FEfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,588,1418083200"; d="scan'208,217";a="396878766"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2015 15:48:30 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1GFmUpG006265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:48:30 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.2.130]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:48:30 -0600
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
To: Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
Thread-Topic: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
Thread-Index: Ac//wAdQ8oS8wTAIRaCZduflS+eKRACnnpkAALMORiAAGw69AABIby4QAFSEnAAAB0lM4AAWZpcAAD0O34AAALf5AAx0cNYwA33osIAALwmLYA==
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:48:29 +0000
Message-ID: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD39447CF8AC9@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
References: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F59FF47@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <D098C403.279A9%mmudigon@cisco.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5A1776@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <CA+C0YO0NV3dkf==-M+kmTu5V_wEm4K0sBjxwu6ChrtieSXX8fw@mail.gmail.com> <20141125223733023799.7609dd07@sniff.de> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD39446D86125@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <CAPLq3UOfbKzEQWG_TjCKr5ar1+ozyLqCvDMpfAWDCNodkb0Mtg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPLq3UOfbKzEQWG_TjCKr5ar1+ozyLqCvDMpfAWDCNodkb0Mtg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.67]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD39447CF8AC9xmbalnx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/QCOF9xkndZ9W7bjbZ2MKRHTBTKs>
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "manav@ionosnetworks.com" <manav@ionosnetworks.com>
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: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:48:39 -0000

Hi Glen,

I appreciate you providing a comment on this topic.

Yes there are ISIS and OSPF extensions to discover remote S-BFD discriminators. This will cover many scenarios and can also be leveraged to detect discriminator collisions within the IGP domain. There are couple of other scenarios which we think in-band discovery of remote S-BFD discriminators (i.e., alert discriminator) will be helpful.

First is monitoring of a target beyond the IGP domain (e.g., inter-AS, MS-PW, etc).

Second is usage of S-BFD in a scenario where there is no ISIS/OSPF running (e.g., IP/MPLS statically provisioned networks, TP, etc).

Third is to avoid requiring some further applications to define S-BFD discriminator advertisements when they want to use S-BFD (e.g., simple tunnels).

I hope this clarifies the “why” question, but do let us know if you think it doesn’t or if you think it doesn’t provide sufficient reasons to construct an in-band S-BFD discriminator discovery mechanism.

We also tried to briefly capture these in section 2.1 of the document (draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim). It would also be helpful if you can browse through them.

Thanks!

-Nobo

From: Glen Kent [mailto:glen.kent@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 6:09 AM
To: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
Cc: Marc Binderberger; Sam Aldrin; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; manav@ionosnetworks.com
Subject: Re: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim

Nobo,

Why do you need this mechanism to discover the remote S-BFD discriminators, when you already have ISIS and OSPF extensions to discover the remote S-BFD targets.

Glen

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Nobo Akiya (nobo) <nobo@cisco.com<mailto:nobo@cisco.com>> wrote:
> To summarize:
> - I will spawn off a separate thread for the alert discriminator soon.

Hello BFD WG,

Finally getting around to follow up on this AI.

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim/?include_text=1

The document describes one simple extension: Let's make S-BFD discriminator zero(0) to have a special meaning.

The primary driver for this is to allow an S-BFD initiator to discover the target S-BFD discriminator, by sending an S-BFD ping packet with your_disc=0 and getting back a valid S-BFD pong packet with "my_disc=<S-BFD discrimiantor>". In other words, when an S-BFD reflector receives an S-BFD ping packet with your_disc=0, it processes it because S-BFD discriminator zero(0) has a special meaning.

Motivation for using this approach to discover the target S-BFD discriminator is described in Section 2.1 of the document.

I think it is most important to discuss this, thus let's leave out discussions on other use of the S-BFD alert discriminator (i.e., Section 2.2) for now.

Personally, I think this is very useful extension to the S-BFD mechanism that we've been working on. I'm curious to see what others think?

Thanks!

-Nobo