IETF Logo Mail Archive

Couple comments on draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 20 March 2018 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 5AEFE120721; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Epis2ay-tsWW; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54E741200C5; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id p142-v6so1295494lfd.6; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Squ2dFjBrDjpsN1Oaxh2GFL99UrcpH501CD+nikDxSw=; b=dmfp3TCZ++3s9AUPp9AW6GNUQaQ+Fnn5aEf6im/RQeP0EpSGLWQpVkLv012hdBsGiz 0f3DcA14hjO/fgRzTYr3LhfF6b5dkBdhbkBZ3jJe3As7sW1S2n5vl6xAGgebiumopOJL s47H6VB1pzgc+bUsIKeUsw8rQkfv85aiiUoINAZJV6YlvmzfvS/s3T1c31TgCem35Y37 yPlgpl25vO9+tZtsy4pbVAXrFmT/YwiFJ9j6PzAMp3JLgtGIP5meg+5bDamG6SeMMZ3H 8jF8w8ZjhfXnkjQj0Hlm+O5b9O3D3uQTvWVTF1QcHb7e7ce36U/Bgx5X61rhFAw3UPPH 180w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Squ2dFjBrDjpsN1Oaxh2GFL99UrcpH501CD+nikDxSw=; b=XuFNcSSCn0C75CB/TByuHG1e/mPTi5p7bcARTS2lDWMSCX3oEIA+l5cMnZcFqyQo/a zOa+Zq45qsN0LCxxt/i1Y7Ia3xbwVLZvTPfNKPXZpXC3TD7vO2HD8FHmFEM0akV7QRg9 wHiReM8Vn8JpjvrqkUOcZcXsYYXOmYw3gzBlYcgyd7NqG9ikNFqSQ04RJMVUjl69891H LqYBXIVl0QIVAUCdkfW3QxUBFnEuJRIYZmxIyx76GKym14vNBst6NabbssOGOpPnlAi/ u8bY/YsniPXM4o6YQbvjjs1a0yrwL7px0J3nSlopwpTugeZyCiQIaqCsOCkOi1GRUpnh OxbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7H5kaCxIpp+rPoJ8kwbQZFkGNvdYU6FQWlXHZAor7WFc5iTfyVe A/9CsDZVTM55I42QXexD9w7Ij3dAWPuh2Kxgh9Etuw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuXPxoqoBunD2z7wlSfYj36VQqne7+ntU+dNcT3/Kqt0c6fW9g+blsX2wl5MJFg0d4OuNKOsSh0qHGSVl0xW3Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:4acd:: with SMTP id x196-v6mr5372173lfa.138.1521536200281; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.145.195 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:56:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVcp9MHSke2Jn3iC54=E5hZgWyrvHzZBjrS=4ZD63ryqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Couple comments on draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy
To: draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy@ietf.org, spring <spring@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bb16080567d4403a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/_ZgBD72Xe0PYBYpkfHeSVlZSZdg>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:56:47 -0000

Dear Authors,
I've read the new draft and would appreciate your consideration of my
comments and questions:

   - if I understand correctly, you prefer using S-BFD in SR domain over
   use of the base BFD. Without arguing with your choice, I'll note that the
   title of the draft doesn't reflect your preference;
   - section 3.4 RFC 7882 already describes use of S-BFD in SR domain. What
   you is missing in the RFC 7882?
   - on more technical side. Use of S-BFD will still result in multiplicity
   of S-BFD packets reflected by egress to ingress. To avoid that we propose
   method to use BFD Demand mode in MPLS data plane as described in
   draft-mirsky-bfd-mlps-demand
   <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand-02>. It will
   be presented in BFD WG meeting and discussed in SPRING as part of BFD in
   SPRING presentation.

Regards,
Greg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email