IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 13 September 2019 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 75A5812011C for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 CiFjSECJtqAm for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99F0120110 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3F5C1E2F3; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:10:47 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <9ABE9227-1259-41DE-A4CD-D58C6E23586E@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:08:02 -0400
Cc: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <95CF8AE5-968C-4D97-A972-17391D9757CE@pfrc.org>
References: <9ECC2E5C-E87E-4859-9DA8-E8E9403DF759@cisco.com> <C44550AC-F6E0-4351-9958-CB9144C9F23A@cisco.com> <4858942C-0B22-40EE-867E-23F24BA54B34@cisco.com> <14F6F67F-1421-4E04-B0AF-50FCCD96468C@pfrc.org> <9ABE9227-1259-41DE-A4CD-D58C6E23586E@cisco.com>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/TDnc2MzgbYuUiElhwSeDQu_9My4>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 13 Sep 2019 18:08:05 -0000

Carlo,s


> On Sep 13, 2019, at 11:48 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
> Right. Or a burst of large packets and a set of bursts of “regular sized” ones. My main point is that I’d like the spec to allow for flexibility in usage if you think it makes sense, and not be all-or-nothing. 

No matter what, you'd have to accommodate for the timers.

If your timers will accommodate small and large within the same interval, go for it. If you need to renegotiate to do a periodic check, go for it.  BFD is permissive about such things. :-)

Even better, suggest text that makes you think such a thing is explicitly permitted rather than implicitly permitted.  I treat this as simply varying bfd.PaddedPduSize on an established session.  

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email