IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <mmudigon@cisco.com> Fri, 17 July 2015 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mmudigon@cisco.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 9C65D1B3074 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 duPdBWPw16wA for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81DC01B30C7 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14887; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1437118825; x=1438328425; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=y6KVcAU7xztEX0zk5UaexEspdf87PW4V+EfmxVmkXjM=; b=E6W+zHpsQGuYPj5tBlHQy0uh/hB2klFOODSs01zDUkrIzYEwbAESIgh0 B7XKIi3bO7uFpq3DDrF7QOGCyflkAdL8XaiQS5VidEEu7bw2afBA9jIRX vUkOQG5+d/nLhC+r12Ur6fAKUypHbGYt7A0dKu+2JI+G5j2Ih5qUqKK6I U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AsAwCgsKhV/4UNJK1agkZNVGkGrBuPOgmHbAKBRDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEELUwQAgEIEQMBAQEoBx8TEwEJCAIEAQ0FiBkDEs9oAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4tMgk2CDgcTEQYBBoQlAQSFYAyOYQEJijKBYZFchycmg3xvgUeBBAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.15,494,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="12500270"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2015 07:40:24 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6H7eOpt031344 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Jul 2015 07:40:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.15.132]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 02:40:24 -0500
From: "MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <mmudigon@cisco.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net>, "S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02
Thread-Topic: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02
Thread-Index: AQHQwEgWRYhetmnZMkyNRGuIJC/D+J3fa9wAgABijwD//8bAgIAAYS+AgAAAxAA=
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 07:40:23 +0000
Message-ID: <D1CEAEF5.45C3%mmudigon@cisco.com>
References: <D1CD4981.4517%mmudigon@cisco.com> <OFFC8D1A54.3565CD48-ON48257E84.0023896D-48257E84.00293A35@zte.com.cn> <SN1PR0501MB1760617949C9921E5A5E12ADB3980@SN1PR0501MB1760.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <7CD7F2E3-88E5-4237-8FCC-BA95FAD7F281@yahoo.com> <SN1PR0501MB1760DEF6CC53A314DE76DC22B3980@SN1PR0501MB1760.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D1CE8CCE.459A%mmudigon@cisco.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221860C27@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <D1CEAD3B.45B5%mmudigon@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1CEAD3B.45B5%mmudigon@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.143.25.169]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1CEAEF545C3mmudigonciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/WmyTRRf_4xzzn8ck0C3WlW9JOwY>
Cc: "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>, "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: <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, 17 Jul 2015 07:40:27 -0000

Hi truncated the message and resending with only the latest conversations

Regards
Mallik

From: Mallik Mudigonda <mmudigon@cisco.com<mailto:mmudigon@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, 17 July 2015 13:07
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com<mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>>, Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net<mailto:santoshpk@juniper.net>>, "S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com<mailto:davarish@yahoo.com>>
Cc: "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

Hi Greg,

Precisely. Can <FEC, LSP> be the same between LSP echo messages sent from 2 different ingresses? I am not sure of this. So there may not be a problem with p2p even if 2 ingresses have the same FEC and Discriminator because the LSP must be different.  I agree that two sessions from the same ingress must use a different discriminator, so no issues. So in p2p cases either LSP or discriminator will be different. Am I right? In the case of mp2p all of these can be the same in which case source address differentiates. Does this make sense?

Thanks

Regards
Mallik

From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com<mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>>
Date: Friday, 17 July 2015 12:49
To: Mallik Mudigonda <mmudigon@cisco.com<mailto:mmudigon@cisco.com>>, Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net<mailto:santoshpk@juniper.net>>, "S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com<mailto:davarish@yahoo.com>>
Cc: "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

Hi  Malik,
I cannot see scenario when bootstrapping LSP Ping has the same source IP address and BFD Discriminator. Something must be different. Consider two nodes with ECMP – A and B. A bootstraps two FD sessions with two LSP Pings. True, IP Source addresses are the same in both as well as FEC. But Discriminators will be different as they must e unique within the same node. Right? If the case of three nodes when two set BFD sessions to the same FEC on the third and accidentally pick the same Discriminator, then IP source addresses must be different between them. Am I missing something?

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:15 PM
To: Santosh P K; S. Davari
Cc: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

Hi,

The question is even with LSP ping, how to de-mutiplex if all the parameters are the same. That’s where the source address comes into picture.

Thanks

Regards
Mallik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email