RE: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shahram,
if BFD session uses IP/UDP encapsulation then LSP Ping bootstrap should be used. Thus the first BFD control packet would not have Your Discriminator == 0. On the other hand ACH encapsulation unlikely to be used in p2mp as this is not MPLS-TP construct.

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of S. Davari
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 6:21 AM
To: Santosh P K
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

Hi Santosh

I think the issue is the first BFD packet that has your Desc =0. Question is how to differentiate them when they are from different ingress LSR.

Regards,
Shahram


On Jul 16, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Santosh P K <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hello Deccan, MALLIK and Shahram,
     I want to understand why do we need this? When BFD bootstrapping is completed then we use local discr (BFD packet your discr) as a key which will be unique with in the local system. Please take a look at below section of RFC 5880.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5880#section-6.3

We don’t need to really use any other fields as we would have exchanged the discr using LSP ping. I might have misunderstood your question and would like to be corrected.


Thanks
Santosh P K

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:00 PM
To: MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; S. Davari
Subject: 答复: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02


Hi Mallik

Source address is also a good method. But it is better to form as standard.

thanks




"MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

2015-07-16 下午 02:16

收件人

"S. Davari" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

抄送

"[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

主题

Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02







Hi,

I think the question is 2 different ingress LSRs using the same FEC, LSP, Discriminator values. Discriminator values can be the same for 2 different ingress LSRs and if the other values are same we can always use the Source address to differentiate. Am I missing something?

Regards
Mallik

From: "S. Davari" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 20:12
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

Hi

Why can't the ingress allocate different LD to each of those BFD sessions?

Regards,
Shahram


On Jul 15, 2015, at 7:30 AM, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


hi authors

It is neccessary to address the case that different ingress LSR establish BFD session with the same egress LSR, with same FEC, same local descriminator.
I think it is very useful to introduce a BFD Initiator TLV to LSP ping echo request message, to distinguish different ingress LSR. So that ingress allocate LD based on tuple <FEC, LSP> as defined in this draft, but egress allocate LD based on tuple <Initiator, FEC, RD>.

thanks
deccan


--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.





--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.







--------------------------------------------------------

ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.