Re: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5881 (draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5881bis) - ZTE Details

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Mon, 31 August 2026 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F062132159D6 for <rtg-bfd@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 01:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1788165109; bh=o41qCRhuRnS+cJKucBFn65LZfrIkkldYkH3aolHT86U=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject; b=JfUxT9rx/QwqJeqYI2Cv0fd41EyTrUMaQOsOdfbocQcyqDkUYlrNdkLtPUsAy4WYN MuL5jsitqWyLiqXnkNBz+DwqTPGBy+fwzQsL5gbP07W/1Lyq6gLUjsyN7i0Wdu77tb 85XjVaryxdGvXIz+76SkAkcwwZJ3bufAAHYb32OM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PEtykYgRLYjP for <rtg-bfd@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 01:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (mxct.zte.com.cn [183.62.165.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A94DD132159C2 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 01:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4hYMfM3MZmz59ysC; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:31:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app08.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.206]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 67V8VU6V088466; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:31:30 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:31:32 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd6a953be4208-b57b6
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <2026083116313288417g1fs0A1mmzejMBlihyW@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <DM4PR11MB5294BACD3EBA7D290606CE15D2A62@DM4PR11MB5294.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: CAMMESswKqPzbqfBGtQimPcvqGiQM5Eno6BQkTdjZELiKjNkCUA@mail.gmail.com,DS0PR11MB64956AA6F4C4D9C0FB7975E5CDED2@DS0PR11MB6495.namprd11.prod.outlook.com,DM4PR11MB5294151854CCDA8FE3537CE9D2ED2@DM4PR11MB5294.namprd11.prod.outlook.com,CAMMESsyzcW-rN03H8fOG5gnOwJgEad1oU6GHMyoh=zyqkw+MLA@mail.gmail.com,DM4PR11MB5294BACD3EBA7D290606CE15D2A62@DM4PR11MB5294.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:31:32 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: rvelucha=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5881 (draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5881bis) - ZTE Details
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 67V8VU6V088466
X-TLS: YES
X-ENVELOPE-SENDER: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
X-SOURCE-IP: 10.5.228.133 unknown Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:31:39 +0800
X-CLEAN: YES
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6A953BEB.002/4hYMfM3MZmz59ysC
Message-ID-Hash: 44TOL4RCGKSS5DDOPX7TXQHBYYANJC3J
X-Message-ID-Hash: 44TOL4RCGKSS5DDOPX7TXQHBYYANJC3J
X-MailFrom: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-bfd.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/QG9Myh0wEc8ky50gEwdOXskznAA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-bfd-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-bfd-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-bfd-leave@ietf.org>

Hi all,

Please find ZTE's implementation report as below.


Organization: ZTE Corporation
 
Implementation Name:
ZXROSNGV15.10.30
 
Description: Details about ZTE Implementation of RFC 5881.
 
Maturity: Widely used in general terms.
 
Coverage:


  For each section, indicate if implemented or not.
 
  2: Multiple Session Support    - Implemented

  2: IPv4 and IPv6 supported      - Implemented

  2: Echo Function                         - Not Implemented. Only Unaffiliated BFD Echo Implemented.

  3: Session association with a received Your Discriminator set to zero  - Implemented

  4: UDP destination port 3784 (Control Packets)             - Implemented

  4: UDP source port in the 49152 through 65535 range    - Implemented

  4: Unique UDP source ports                                                - Not Implemented

  4: UDP destination port 3785 (Echo Packets)                            - Implemented, only for Unaffiliated BFD Echo

  5: Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (authentication not in use)               - Not Implemented

  5: Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (authentication in use)                     - Not Implemented

  6: Enforce one-hop path           - Implemented  

  6: Multiaccess Networks         - Implemented

  6: Point-to-Point Links              - Not Implemented

  7: Tunnels                                      - Implemented

Licensing: Proprietary
 
Implementation experience: N/A
 
Comments (optional):
 
Contact Information: Zhao Yanhua - zhao.yanhua3@zte.com.cn
 
Date: Aug 31, 2026

Cheers,
Xiao Min


Original


From: RajaguruVeluchamy(rvelucha) <rvelucha=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
  
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
  
Date: 2026年08月18日 21:45
  
Subject: RE: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5881 (draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5881bis) - Cisco Details
  




HI Team,
 
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc
 
Implementation Name: 
IOS XR Version 4.0 
IOS XE Version 12.0(31)S2
IOS NX Version 5.0(2)
 
Description: Details about Cisco Implementation of RFC 5881.
 
Maturity: Widely used in general terms.
 
Coverage:
 
  For each section, indicate if implemented or not.
 
  2: Multiple Session Support    - Implemented

  2: IPv4 and IPv6 supported      - Implemented

  2: Echo Function                         - Implemented

  3: Session association with a received Your Discriminator set to zero  - Implemented

  4: UDP destination port 3784 (Control Packets)             - Implemented

  4: UDP source port in the 49152 through 65535 range    - Implemented

  4: Unique UDP source ports                                                - Implemented

  4: UDP destination port 3785 (Echo Packets)                            - Implemented

  5: Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (authentication not in use)               - Implemented

  5: Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (authentication in use)                     - Implemented

  6: Enforce one-hop path           - Implemented   

  6: Multiaccess Networks         - Implemented

  6: Point-to-Point Links              - Implemented

  7: Tunnels                                      - Implemented
 
Licensing: Proprietary
 
Implementation experience:
 
      -  None.
 
Comments (optional):
 
Contact Information: Rajaguru Veluchamy - rvelucha@cisco.com
 
Date: Aug 18, 2026
==============================================
Regards
V.Rajaguru
XR/BFD/PI
 

From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> 
 Sent: 24 June 2026 04:24 PM
 To: Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) <rvelucha@cisco.com>
 Subject: RE: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5881 (draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5881bis)


 

Thanks!


 
On June 24, 2026 at 1:43:26 AM, Rajaguru Veluchamy (rvelucha) (rvelucha@cisco.com) wrote:


Hi Alvaro,
We will get this filled out, from Cisco and get back.
 
Regards
V.Rajaguru
XR/BFD/PI
 

From: Alvaro  Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 05:30 AM
 To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
 Subject: Implementation/Conformance Poll for rfc5881 (draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5881bis)


 
Hi!
 
This email starts an implementation/conformance poll for rfc5881.
 
Please consider the information requested below and reply to this poll with data about your implementation. You  can do it in one of the following ways:
 
(1) Reply to this message.
 
(2) Fill out this form: https://forms.gle/BnNqXumrUeDXnikC9 
 
(3) Submit a PR in GitHub; here's a template: https://github.com/bfd-wg/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5881-bis/blob/main/rfc5881_Conformance.xml 
 
Thanks!
 
Alvaro.
 
 
# Required Information:
 
Organization:
 
Implementation Name:
 
Description:
 
Maturity:
 
Coverage:
 
  For each section, indicate if implemented or not.
 
  2: Multiple Session Support
 
  2: IPv4 and IPv6 supported
 
  2: Echo Function
 
  3: Session association with a received Your Discriminator set to zero
 
  4: UDP destination port 3784 (Control Packets)
 
  4: UDP source port in the 49152 through 65535 range
 
  4: Unique UDP source ports
 
  4: UDP destination port 3785 (Echo Packets)
 
  5: Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (authentication not in use)
 
  5: Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (authentication in use)
 
  6: Enforce one-hop path
 
  6: Multiaccess Networks
 
  6: Point-to-Point Links
 
  7: Tunnels
 
Licensing:
 
Implementation Experience:
 
Comments (optional):
 
Contact Information:
 
Date: