IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags: IPv4 _and_ IPv6 ?

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 12 September 2012 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 5EBD621F859B for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.205
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.205 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TmpMXP4NmSbx for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08E821F8574 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 69944C386; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:04:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:04:48 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>
Subject: Re: draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags: IPv4 _and_ IPv6 ?
Message-ID: <20120912140448.GA25587@pfrc>
References: <AC626F7A-7A9A-4395-B653-32C0F45BFA85@sniff.de> <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350D063A0B51@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAGEmCZxJtms7puJW6W4J13vr7Y1dajpuGt0cZQXivGFFWEafOw@mail.gmail.com> <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350D063A0D7A@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <0D1B9ACE-889A-4090-88CC-BA7E3652117F@sniff.de> <20120912133410.GB25037@pfrc> <98FA4437-6313-442D-B181-974CEA623363@sniff.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <98FA4437-6313-442D-B181-974CEA623363@sniff.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags@tools.ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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 Sep 2012 14:04:51 -0000

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:57:14PM +0200, Marc Binderberger wrote:
> > The implication is that if IPv4 drops, but IPv6 stays up, that the LMM
> > should remove *only* the impacted address family from use.
> 
> ... if the implementation can differentiate between IPv4 and IPv6 in the load balance. I have no intention to make such an AF-aware load-balance table a requirement. The fact that either an IPv4 or an IPv6 BFD failure can remove the link for all traffic is understood by (my) customers and acceptable.

Agreed - we don't want to force implementations to have unnecessary
abstractions.  (We're not OSI.)  But...

> But with such an "if an implementation's distribution algorithm can differentiate between IPv4 and IPv6 then ..." condition I can add something to the draft.

Exactly.  Let's be thorough.

> Has anyone implemented such an AF-ware load-balancer?  Just for my curiosity.

FWIW, this is one of those "I'm not concerned about this year's
implementations.  It's next year's that I'm worried about" issues.

Prophylactic standardization, if you will.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email