Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)
xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Fri, 07 April 2023 07:15 UTC
Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 6384FC151B29 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 00:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v8MoB-oKCd4o for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 00:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1396C14CE53 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 00:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4Pt8lM5mYMz6FK2Z; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 15:15:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app05.zte.com.cn ([10.55.22.121]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3377F2p1084136; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 15:15:02 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 15:15:04 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 15:15:04 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb642fc2f8ffffffffad5-75286
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202304071515047394062@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <FA1B93AC-EA7C-4F02-A9E0-A589CBB3983A@pfrc.org>
References: CA+RyBmXtST1EZcba_RM90NLf5hYAiKL2+XjSZwO2r-d_XNjwqA@mail.gmail.com, 202304061535115089547@zte.com.cn, FA1B93AC-EA7C-4F02-A9E0-A589CBB3983A@pfrc.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: jhaas@pfrc.org
Cc: gregimirsky@gmail.com, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 3377F2p1084136
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 642FC2FF.001/4Pt8lM5mYMz6FK2Z
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RB5-tMIK3H6YPKL2iplMBMEGXgo>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 07 Apr 2023 07:15:18 -0000
Jeff, Thank you for the comments. Please see inline... Original From: JeffreyHaas <jhaas@pfrc.org> To: 肖敏10093570; Cc: gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年04月06日 22:28 Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023) Xiao Min, Thanks for addressing Greg's comments. I some additional comment on Greg's points: On Apr 6, 2023, at 3:35 AM, <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: One of the considerations may be whether a IPv6 link local address is preferable to a global address. The only consideration for the draft as it is written is that the address used as the destination may be looped back by the unaffiliated device. Link local helps address the security considerations that impact this feature, and it might be worth noting that when link local can be used for the use case that it assists in this point. [XM]>>> I checked this with the implementer of this feature, and I'm told setting the DA to a IPv6 link local address doesn't work, because the link local address can't be looped back by the neighboring device. Since the feature is intended to be used for single-hop, the source address SHOULD be an address on the shared subnet with the interface of the device that is looping the packets back. Perhaps it might even be reasonable to require that the source and destination addresses are identical when possible? Where this may complicate procedure is the initial demultiplexing step when the session is Down. Once the session is Up, the Discriminators can be used for this purpose. [XM]>>> I propose the text change as below. OLD Device A would send BFD Unaffiliated Echo packets with IP destination address destined for itself, such as the IP address of interface 1 of device A. NEW Device A would send BFD Unaffiliated Echo packets with IP destination address destined for itself, such as the IP address of interface 1 of device A. The IP source address of the BFD Unaffiliated Echo packets could be identical to the IP destination address or other address provisioned on device A. Regards, Xiao Min -- Jeff The draft describes how the destination IP address of the Echo packet is set. Are there any special considerations for selecting IPv6 destination address? [XM]>>> The draft currently says "Device A would send BFD Unaffiliated Echo packets with IP destination address destined for itself, such as the IP address of interface 1 of device A". No any special considerations.
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… xiao.min2
- WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Jeffrey Haas
- Re:WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (end… 程伟强
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Greg Mirsky
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… xiao.min2
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… linchangwang
- RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Aijun Wang
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Greg Mirsky
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… xiao.min2
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… xiao.min2
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Jeffrey Haas
- RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Aijun Wang
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Gyan Mishra
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… xiao.min2
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Greg Mirsky
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Greg Mirsky
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… xiao.min2
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… xiao.min2
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (en… xiao.min2