IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com> Mon, 08 December 2014 06:13 UTC

Return-Path: <manavbhatia@gmail.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 3A11F1A1B68 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:13:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 QUzLexIcRlD8 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:13:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AAF31A6F22 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:13:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a141so2911210oig.37 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:13:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=a4TyomLxEN98J01natgjM9YNCpXvfY4AI0zLmLoogIc=; b=ExIR5KseO9P2WFAG6qZ1AW7yQf6jaI8MQkDw45y4uyu2tfYU0xXLo7pf9OlxrkGla2 Il/C78K1XH1V2llfqfsS99/Pa3olI62Dq8n9xthiUL2OtL+MAZPs7+Uy+R2uvnL/jYxo JPZFmX5c9VQ9WNuUkunYGMVMuy/IWprrRZTxvB7fuIQZHfWhPP5tCmW2oOIi2H+XSqZD yyhaySoB0MhMJshsRRD2IQxklEqSrNvADCC370tCiClB2oAf0heuUz+jv+2gWAwyf5IY 9kr0waveL/Yrb/KnqOAENkwSvrDWQDei7pa4cGhfZPkK/qB9FKCnslB/ZGRuEZ6opG6x UjqQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.65.99 with SMTP id w3mr6546722oes.6.1418019188710; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:13:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.178.199 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:13:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CO2PR0501MB823962B235ACA590C076236B3640@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CO2PR0501MB823C222B7D62779F4DF58CDB3780@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D0A647C1.28843%mmudigon@cisco.com> <CO2PR0501MB8234A1BDDFD008EE12C847AB3780@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5AE38D@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <CAG1kdogkUr2YyodeUPWOqea+2jqOkmdYnPywVHCw8j1+=9eM6A@mail.gmail.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5AE4AE@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <CAG1kdoh5DwdKrJWK_aSvo4KQ6Xu5ZaTObe_PLhV66YZ4yQozmg@mail.gmail.com> <20141207193610211284.1f098741@sniff.de> <CAG1kdojxdDY0qXPYnZ5K67rizVaD7gHte1MdRA2q==K6SoRVsw@mail.gmail.com> <CO2PR0501MB823962B235ACA590C076236B3640@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:43:08 +0530
Message-ID: <CAG1kdohphBUAS8MaDAd+gQJ5THxW52==2At1Ffkh40mPpe6cPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
From: Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>
To: Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c24a320723730509ae5258"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Seb2Ys6obgB3IfwY_fHcxgeAnwg
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
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, 08 Dec 2014 06:13:11 -0000

Cool. I had multihop in my mind.

Cheers, Manav

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net> wrote:

>  Hello Mac and Manav,
>
>      Are we just talking about singlehop? How about MPLS BFD and multihop
> where echo does not work?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Santosh P K
>
>
>
> *From:* Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Manav
> Bhatia
> *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 9:33 AM
> *To:* Marc Binderberger
> *Cc:* rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
>
>
>
> Hi Marc,
>
>
>
>
>
> * Greg's echo idea is of course do-able - when you think timestamping in
> hardware can be done then it can be done in the forwarding path for echos
> as
> well. Depends on your hardware :-) and on an agreed (minimal) format for
> echo. As mentioned BFD echo is not defined/used for multiple BFD features,
> which limits it's use though.
>
>
>
> For the echo mechanism to work, do you agree that you would have to
> continuously send Echos so that you can detect the issue?
>
>
>
> Or are you suggesting that once BFD flaps we will start sending Echoes
> overloaded with debug information to detect the issue?
>
>
>
> I'd like to understand this before the mailing list sees a barrage of
> emails. Alternatively, we can also take it offline and only report the
> summary of our discussion to the list.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Manav
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email