Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Mon, 10 April 2023 02:42 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 65FDDC151547 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Apr 2023 19:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ae2UIgjleV2s for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Apr 2023 19:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C38C1C14CE42 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Apr 2023 19:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4PvtYm1N27z8R04C; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:42:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app03.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.14]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 33A2ghmd053300; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:42:43 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:42:44 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:42:44 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af9643377a46d7-66680
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202304101042442739296@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <B97890D2-3EA7-40D0-87A0-9DD114B9B418@pfrc.org>
References: CA+RyBmXtST1EZcba_RM90NLf5hYAiKL2+XjSZwO2r-d_XNjwqA@mail.gmail.com, 202304071515047394062@zte.com.cn, B97890D2-3EA7-40D0-87A0-9DD114B9B418@pfrc.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: jhaas@pfrc.org
Cc: gregimirsky@gmail.com, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 33A2ghmd053300
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 643377AC.000/4PvtYm1N27z8R04C
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/YAfwjrYUNj-IkJxSpoebqtPwDc8>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 02:42:57 -0000

Jeff,






Please see inline...



Original



From: JeffreyHaas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: gregimirsky@gmail.com <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年04月07日 23:32
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)


Xiao Min,

On Apr 7, 2023, at 3:15 AM, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn wrote:
That's an interesting deficiency.  I will ask Juniper BFD developers if there's any similar consideration for our current implementation.
"could" isn't one of our RFC 2119 normative terms.  Do you believe "SHOULD" is more appropriate?
[XM-2]>>> If we would like to use normative term for SA, then that can also apply to DA, suggest s/would/MUST. As Greg pointed out, there may be implicit conflict with RFC 5881 section 4 that says "In particular, the source address SHOULD NOT be part of the subnet bound to the interface over which the BFD Echo packet is being transmitted".




Best Regards,

Xiao Min




-- Jeff









On Apr 6, 2023, at 3:35 AM, <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote:

One of the considerations may be whether a IPv6 link local address is preferable to a global address.  

The only consideration for the draft as it is written is that the address used as the destination may be looped back by the unaffiliated device.  Link local helps address the security considerations that impact this feature, and it might be worth noting that when link local can be used for the use case that it assists in this point.

[XM]>>> I checked this with the implementer of this feature, and I'm told setting the DA to a IPv6 link local address doesn't work, because the link local address can't be looped back by the neighboring device.