S-BFD and routable addresses

 For some reason the original email didnt make it to BFD mailing list ..

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:50 AM
To: Acee Lindem; Xuxiaohu
Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org; fanpeng@chinamobile.com; Wes George; Joel jaeggli;
OSPF List; sunset4@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
Subject: Re: [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs

Sorry for joining the party so late ..

Those of you following the BFD WG would know that BFD WG is currently being
re-chartered to include S-BFD as one of the items that it will be working
on.

For S-BFD to work, we need to distribute the S-BFD discriminators across
the IGP routing domain. How this can be achieved with OSPF has been
described in
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-00.txt

With the help of this draft S-BFD clients will know what S-BFD
discriminator to use when talking to the reflector or the S-BFD server.

However, it still needs a routable IP address that it can use to set up the
S-BFD session.

I believe the draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id-00 will help us in
getting that information in the IPv6 context.

Unfortunately, the above draft uses an inappropriate TLV name and doesn’t
seem to have a use-case that supports the need for such a TLV. I believe we
have at least one use case where we need a "routable" IPv6 address.

Cheers, Manav

> -----Original Message-----

> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org <ospf-bounces@ietf.org>] On
Behalf Of Acee Lindem

> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 7:10 PM

> To: Xuxiaohu

> Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org; Wes George; fanpeng@chinamobile.com; Joel

> jaeggli; OSPF List; sunset4@ietf.org; lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com

> Subject: Re: [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router

> IDs

>

> Hi Xiaohu,

> Please include the precise use cases as to WHY this is needed OSPF

> draft.

> And by precise, I don't mean just listing MPLS applications, I mean

> explaining why you need this routable address above and beyond what is

> already advertised. At least in the case of OSPF, I'm not convinced.

> Thanks,

> Acee

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>

> Date: Sunday, May 11, 2014 6:44 PM

> To: Ericsson <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>

> Cc: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>, Anton Smirnov

> <asmirnov@cisco.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>,

> "fanpeng@chinamobile.com" <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>, Wes George

> <wesley.george@twcable.com>, Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, OSPF -

> OSPF

> WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>,

> "lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com" <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>

> Subject: 答复: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 答复:  答复:  [sunset4]   IPv6 router

> IDs

>

> >Hi Acee,

> >

> >IMHO, segment routing could work together with the RFC3464 VPN. In

> such

> >case, the segment routing just replace the role of LDP or RSVP-TE of

> >establishing a transport LSP between PE routers.

> >

> >Best regards,

> >Xiaohu

_______________________________________________

OSPF mailing list

OSPF@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf