Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?

Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> Sat, 08 June 2019 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <santosh.pallagatti@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 90EAB120094 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 02:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 jpEXeY-gfNDq for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 02:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) (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 F381612004D for <Rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 02:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id c2so4360472wrm.8 for <Rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 Jun 2019 02:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YFBYB1WkPPHRXHyky0SsE0NhqW2YGdQBrYshvrPu9Bg=; b=czbF/iis0xtJl2HHbk04mOittzjvHwV+mwAtos1LJTfwXJZh5ccMv/nGaMyFxaxisx dq3oPjTGkCs2ZInjsRlYbkABn+C5K83yim3AJ5IbgoKaect8PVtXat3slSvWhhEeZQx+ OX5ku4hACi+5ogoZPgaD11j5Q45ntC6uQOMerSocBRy+D9K4sN1YBBJ32xtzLHmk79N2 1tLbutniSpFTz2dY4CV0b+NewTqRXnvBeAfypKS26r+OVncwR9aOQEhRTPrjybT4N0d1 GndQQWqHvTumRNNsAyRykCFFqDWVyqX0zbjandDYfL9x7ni6NSfpBtbo9pNA75uDwD3I JYeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YFBYB1WkPPHRXHyky0SsE0NhqW2YGdQBrYshvrPu9Bg=; b=fd37DQN7vo7ylCacAkyHfyLyTGBj169BI4acQea5LvaP8AwvQwX58axqSA55IfL/3n vMMVSsNyi3/fhO4+E30sNwgjNkBo5W+cPBGxR5GT+J3NukmHo0qNe3DBzc4HAPPMRuRp AziTOWzaX5g1qE6eCOWtx7G04JI5ZOeOA4a75/8m4/p/B4/jjMtB9l29xXptFI+PjiHn usg5cnBvRJ9tAzps3rW19v+CPcV33EnMTUj0eahnEdNJYLFz0xDRtFGiSIeSEhNqJ0vI aHlJkXgozqXTZP/SMwi3M5+s+baxnjD//Oww56seWVru4kmxvTPkuUxty9ROVCM+mNpV HM0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXrEtDcSOmxCRo7vD+9zuB7l1hGFweVuns+kWniM9oVWipdwVt ouoprkSMzWK6CSeau2XrVb7uLYW1gt1u4MPO210=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxPuXRVc1EFv1z6Eq8I4wIT0UaVPaamx6EzhXuAoBjCN9ar2edtQdNs6w9Er56MZy+mXEYVxc0qMA/xlNemBNc=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f3cc:: with SMTP id g12mr34887949wrp.149.1559984680530; Sat, 08 Jun 2019 02:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e06e6a9189eb4174a6777da720d31294@etas.com> <AM0PR03MB3828C11241B4118A96BAFB7A9D100@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <f6450c2f-a436-7127-251d-e09b79ba15f9@gmail.com> <20190607115617.GC15506@pfrc.org> <7a42f74e46484476a8b642a29649a471@etas.com>
In-Reply-To: <7a42f74e46484476a8b642a29649a471@etas.com>
From: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 14:34:29 +0530
Message-ID: <CACi9rdvk5J+YQ_o6wzmXy+nmfuN=nqBiB=WcPCKs3q76XTnjQg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
To: "Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1)" <Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <Rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bcf7a7058acc3c3a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/d1OdloKXvg2yEWz0ws7yO0iqTuw>
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: Sat, 08 Jun 2019 09:04:45 -0000

Schwarz,
    Just curious to know why do you have this use case? I mean why not use
CFM itself?

Thanks
Santosh P K

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 2:17 PM Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <
Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com> wrote:

> Thanks Sasha, Jeff & Stewart for your reply!
>
> OK, understood, more a technology ownership question (IEEE 802 vs IETF)
> than a technical issue.
> Running BFD directly over Ethernet would (at least) require to assign an
> Ethertype codepoint (
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xml )
> for BFD.
>
> But BFD-over-Ethernet seems to be then in direct competition with the IEEE
> 802.1ag defined OAM capabilities (guess the Connectivity Fault Management
> protocols), i.e., the IEEE Continuity Check protocol.
> My rough understanding.
>
> Thanks again!
> Albrecht
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
> Sent: 07 June 2019 13:56
> To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
> Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>om>; Schwarz
> Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com>om>; Rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
>
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 12:20:30PM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > However if you really want BFD, you only need a lightweight IP
> > implementation to carry it.
>
> During the work for BFD for LAG, IETF already went a bit too close to
> stepping into IEEE territory.  Raw BFD over Ethernet would not be received
> very well by that organization, I think.  (Even if it'd be trivial to
> specify.)
>
> -- Jeff
>
>