Re: WGLC for BFD over Link Aggregate Group Interfaces - ends November 8

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

I am not clear on the fact whether the draft is talking about BFD session between two boxes that are one hop away and have a LAG between them. I assume it does not address the case where the LAG might be in the middle of the network, where one or both ends of the LAG are not the end points of the BFD session.

The document talks about using IP/UDP encapsulation on each micro BFD session. How will this work on MPLS-TP tunnels running over a LAG?

For initial DOWN BFD packet, where the Your Discriminator field is 0,  the draft suggests that demultiplexing MUST be based on some combination of other fields which MUST include the interface information of the member link. That assumes that systems are aware of what interface the BFD packet came on. That is not always the case, and in a global label/IP space, systems do not have to know the physical link traffic came on. I am struggling to suggest an alternative, but would like to see the issue addressed particularly since it is a MUST.

Same is true for the procedure for the reception of BFD control packet and its verification of the interface that it came on.

On Oct 24, 2013, at 10:00 PM, Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) wrote:

> Support
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 12:45 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: WGLC for BFD over Link Aggregate Group Interfaces - ends November 8
> 
> This email is to initiate working group last call on the BFD on Link Aggregate Group Interfaces document:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-01
> 
> The last call will complete on November 8, the end of IETF week.  Time will be available during the Vancouver IETF BFD session to discuss last call comments.
> 
> Nobo Akiya will be serving as document shepherd (RFC 4858) for this WGLC.
> 
> Due to the small nature of the BFD working group and the fact that both working group chairs have contributed to this document, we have gotten Carlos Pignataro ([e-mail]) to volunteer to serve as an independent party to gauge working group consensus.
> 
> In order to facilitate the transparency of this WGLC, please remember to send all comments to the working group mailing list.
> 
> IPR declarations have been filed against this draft and the document authors and contributors have been polled for any further IPR.  Current IPR declarations may be seen at the following link:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags
> 
> If you are aware of additional IPR against this document please declare so, per the IETF Note Well.
> 
> Finally, the IEEE has expressed interest in the disposition of this draft.
> They will likely provide additional commentary, if any, via the IETF liaison process.  This process will likely happen after WGLC concludes.  Depending on their feedback, WGLC may re-open to address their concerns.
> 
> -- Jeff (for the chairs)

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]