RE: Direct BFD over Ethernet?

"Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1)" <Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com> Wed, 12 June 2019 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com>
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 64A6B12011B for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 zJH107NfV0Gu for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de-out1.bosch-org.com (de-out1.bosch-org.com [139.15.230.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FD331200A4 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fe0vm1650.rbesz01.com (unknown [139.15.230.188]) by fe0vms0187.rbdmz01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45P8QN3Fy9z1XLDR1; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from si0vm02576.rbesz01.com (unknown [10.58.172.176]) by fe0vm1650.rbesz01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45P8QN2vryz1Qg; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:32 +0200 (CEST)
X-AuditID: 0a3aad0d-173ff700000036fe-3e-5d010c4c3334
Received: from fe0vm1651.rbesz01.com ( [10.58.173.29]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by si0vm02576.rbesz01.com (SMG Outbound) with SMTP id 60.ED.14078.C4C010D5; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from SI-MBX2055.de.bosch.com (unknown [10.3.230.149]) by fe0vm1651.rbesz01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45P8QN0BZJznqf; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from SI-MBX2054.de.bosch.com (10.3.230.148) by SI-MBX2055.de.bosch.com (10.3.230.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:31 +0200
Received: from SI-MBX2054.de.bosch.com ([fe80::187:74e0:f8c8:c9b1]) by SI-MBX2054.de.bosch.com ([fe80::187:74e0:f8c8:c9b1%4]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.006; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:31 +0200
From: "Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1)" <Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
Thread-Topic: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
Thread-Index: AdUdHwIY3QLc2dE1SwCr012LbinkaAAAvtBv///ghQCAAAoAgP/+hUYwgAMa5gCABUeEgIABGwoA///cAzA=
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:29:31 +0000
Message-ID: <cef2d3c7fbb443d0b392935193efaf91@etas.com>
References: <e06e6a9189eb4174a6777da720d31294@etas.com> <AM0PR03MB3828C11241B4118A96BAFB7A9D100@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <f6450c2f-a436-7127-251d-e09b79ba15f9@gmail.com> <20190607115617.GC15506@pfrc.org> <7a42f74e46484476a8b642a29649a471@etas.com> <AM0PR03MB3828A71E881294059A5BB8829D110@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20190611212305.GB12590@pfrc.org> <AM0PR03MB382870144F1E38857FCF247B9DEC0@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR03MB382870144F1E38857FCF247B9DEC0@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.35.83.170]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA21Tb0wTdxjmd3dtr4Vjx1HouxYCuSgujDFkOprNEb+NLSb6wZi40G2HHLSR ttgrDPywFJFISERCRGiFyZ+OOcGJiJUKg9jINglhE5J1dOokkjCFiRvsD8yUXTmw/bAvl+ee P+/7+z2XI3FmgNSSJoudt1m4ElauIlRvXU5+bV8MMmR916XSN11/hutHb/0m0y8/9yD9+ENu L5HXH/wW5Xld9xV5bvcqljd9+rrsAPGBak8hX2Iq522v536sMgbOt8lLW3UVrd1LMgdqS6xD ShLoXfD8brOiDqlIhnZiUH92TBESGLoXwZqbloQlBL/fDGDSywiCyUt+ecglp/fCnR+rN7Ca zofVlpaNNE4fgoWOhg0+nk6DqYlfZZJnB8w55jEJF8DVgJeoQyRJ0NthoTMjBCk6BwZ6dkmr /Dh8dWqaCNmVtAFWhq/gIYzoZOjr+x6XVmkgMHcBk25Dg3tY4oFOgMePgjIJp4J/fJ6Q/BnQ PvSHXMKvQnfHwoafouPgjnOOaEAaV8RYV0TEFRFxRUTaEXEJJQqmrHJzVvbunDczbQW8cDxr Z+YRq7kfSR+QGkSTfxX5EE0iNoaKkyMDI+PKhUqzD+0mMTaBShuNMjCxBdbCSiMnGD+ylZXw Aqulkn54P5+Jf0ELZQVmkyCYrBYfAhJn1VT2UTFHFXKVx3mbVYr5kI4kWA1VTO7PZ+hizs4f 5flS3ralvk2SLFDz0eIZ4mx8MV9RZCqxb8lsMoWioqKYxEglci1GKn3oDTJG3L0tNIISSjmz YCrejL8sxZktNhwdR++RDY/bOnHy1thnnThDWKwWXquhDoWm0CG/sczy4hzaJGqxaj2fSYgQ wrOeoBkkNhlPvasSwzHi3xI+AVC6UGlxm2Q4lP25mKE9DLSvncFg4sQoBj1Tqxi4/vwFh8GT szi0+N0EnFx4QMB6l1sG9cF/ZBBs7JDD8vSwHC42r8th5uGAAlpmvQrw1i4roPbeUyU0/t0a DTO9NbFw4Rvx4RmYegkmGhwMBL5sZODp0H0GvBfvqeHmv+uJ8KCvVgODK26AnxZ7ATq7bgPM Dq1poWelWwdn6vy6J2K9mFjvwaFgvlivnbP/T72bbPh2WgfaNkRXRZO3y8fSPz19qvuKp73p xitFX/QmVfXnnk8ZUVeeKwhU/zxCnW2t3z55znHMuye39Jr6ampTSlzGJzrntQpiMaemqebD sh13n71zLD0Td6bcaN+Hj3jYg40nfLF2trpZX3QgdqA71ZcaiymP9HLGoCnta4NzbMq9NOw9 /IglBCO3Mx23Cdx/fS0c3scEAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/ZRj2krqm8aWX4U0yVG7BmwFA2Po>
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:29:46 -0000

Thanks again all for recommendations and background information.

With regards to RFC 7130:
> Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces

Actually, I was thinking about a group size of one ("whereas the normal LAG is > 1") to emulate BFD over a single physical Ethernet link, - something like a dedicated  "BFD-over-LAG protocol profile".
However, didn't investigate so far the overhead.

Regards,
Albrecht


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> 
Sent: 12 June 2019 16:16
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com>om>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Direct BFD over Ethernet?

Jeffrey,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.

I tend to agree with your statement that " IETF doesn't have a useful OAM model".
But I would add that, in spite of that, IETF has a rich set of OAM tools that are widely deployed and serve the real needs of the IETF community reasonably well, and from time to time adds to this set when new issues are identified.

Whether a useful OAM model is really needed in his situation, or not, is, IMHO, a matter of personal preferences.

"If it is not broken we don't fix it".

My 2c,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 12:23 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Cc: Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <albrecht.schwarz@etas.com>om>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?

On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 12:45:50PM +0000, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> To the best of my recollection the BFD WG hss tried to cooperate with IEEE 802.1, but these attempts have failed.

I think that's a mis-characterization.

Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7130

IEEE wasn't really interested in having BFD running native.  Much of this has to do with the OAM and layering models that IEEE has for Ethernet.

And yet, IETF was getting push to solve at least a problem relating to layer 3 issues for traffic balancing over LAGs.  That was somewhat out of the realm of IEEE.

So, while it took us a while to frame the problem, we eventually found a place where we were able to solve our respective problems without stepping too much on organizational and layer-wise boundaries.

> At the same time I think there is a difference in the overall attitude with regard to OAM between IETF and IEEE 802.1.

I think I would state this as "IETF doesn't have a useful OAM model".  Many people would prefer us to have one, and see BFD as a useful component for it.  However, that's bigger work than just BFD.

-- Jeff

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________