IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-09

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Fri, 29 June 2018 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.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 C989A130DCC; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 edk-1KKEy8TO; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14C66130DC1; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4BF7BBACDA739; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:52:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:52:02 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.90]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.228]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:51:58 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail.all@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-09
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-09
Thread-Index: AQHUD8iO22YytSIWJ0Ko2uRvTqHK8KR3cr6w
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B0764D4@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <153021423641.18488.4659084638238812446@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmU_zRdtSTbogU_4As-YLhhM9OYKWSSgN190cSwLkLzwCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmU_zRdtSTbogU_4As-YLhhM9OYKWSSgN190cSwLkLzwCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.89]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B0764D4sjceml521mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/_biA33TIsYOZgIZ5EYdCTzXXjXQ>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 29 Jun 2018 16:52:08 -0000

Greg,

Thanks for the reply.

It might be too late to ask this question, I am curious if the head-end is aware of the list of end points, what is wrong if they just use unicast BFD to each of them? Multicast-BFD seems requires more support of the network, isn’t it?

Linda

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:45 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-09

Hi Linda,
thank you for the review and your kind words, much appreciated.

If an end-point during the p2mp BFD session never responded to the head's multicast poll it is unknown to the head and cannot be reported as "inactive tail". I can imagine that if the head has been given the list of the tails, then the unresponsive end-point can be reported as "inactive tails".

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com<mailto:Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>> wrote:
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-??
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2018-06-28
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-18
IESG Telechat date: 2018-07-05

Summary: clear writing of the procedure.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

Are End points that not responding considered "Inactive Tails"?  Does the
HeadEnd report the "Inactive Tails"?

Linda Dunbar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email