Re: Multiple BFD sessions over one path

Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net> Sat, 19 September 2009 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dkatz@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5940D3A6407 for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X4qumeu7MkjG for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12AB3A63D3 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSrR9Gqr3Z2Nph8gXIQKjrNX4gW1ZwaCo@postini.com; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:41:36 PDT
Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.375.2; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:40:01 -0700
Received: from p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.46]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:40:01 -0700
Received: from emailsmtp55.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.132]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:40:00 -0700
Received: from merlot.juniper.net ([172.17.27.10]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:39:59 -0700
Received: from nimbus-sf.juniper.net (nimbus-sf.juniper.net [172.16.12.139]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n8J6dx027486; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:39:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net)
From: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
To: Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B0D01528858543EF97B47C4B99BB775D@m55527c>
Subject: Re: Multiple BFD sessions over one path
X-Priority: 3
References: <B0D01528858543EF97B47C4B99BB775D@m55527c>
Message-ID: <52B6048D-137E-4B97-A688-686134B32D92@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:39:58 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2009 06:39:59.0977 (UTC) FILETIME=[0291DD90:01CA38F4]
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:40:41 -0000

The point of the text in 1hop is that there isn't any use in having  
more than one session over a "path", and in any case it can't be done  
because there would be no way to demultiplex the initial packet of  
multiple sessions on the same "path" (because the first packet carries  
discriminator 0).

But diffserv is essentially a tunnel of sorts;  each service level has  
potentially different forwarding characteristics, so it may be useful  
to run BFD over more than one level (and the sessions can be  
demultiplexed because they are contextualized by the diffserv level).

Essentially, each diffserv service level is considered to be a  
separate path, not unlike GRE or IPsec or what have you.

Implementors are free to do as they please;  the point of the text is  
to not preclude creative use of BFD where it can be useful.

--Dave



On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Mach Chen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> After reading the two drafts (draft-ietf-bfd-generic-05 and draft- 
> ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-09), I have some confusion about the session  
> limitation over a specific network-layer path.
>
> Section 2 of draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-09 says:
> "Each BFD session between a pair of systems MUST traverse a separate  
> network-layer path in both directions..."
>
> But section 6 of draft-ietf-bfd-generic-05 says:
> "...if multiple differentiated services [DIFFSERV] are being  
> operated over IPv4, an independent BFD session may be run for each  
> service level...", this implicates that there may be mulitiple BFD  
> sessions over one network-layer(ipv4) path, but it seems that this  
> is not allowed in draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-09. How to understand  
> this conflict?  or do I miss something?
>
> Best regards,
> Mach Chen
>
>
>
>