BFD Admin-down
"Jagrati Shringi" <shringi@gmail.com> Thu, 20 December 2007 19:19 UTC
Return-path: <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Qvh-00075T-Dn; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:19:37 -0500
Received: from rtg-bfd by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Qvg-0006z8-6E for rtg-bfd-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:19:36 -0500
Received: from rtg-bfd by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Qvf-0006yh-SX for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:19:35 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5QlF-0004XO-Ka for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:08:49 -0500
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.185]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5QlF-0005KS-6y for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:08:49 -0500
Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c24so2647386rvf.47 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:08:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=XZ9mSBu26sSEr6dZvs4tHCvvnnZ2Qgv5BT9Y70N44A8=; b=gSh/YzbdRPdQuunqpqb2YgXNMFW0OM/aYJja1GtMLpVHGUGfZv7JeL0YXQc8ODMNSfrqWMI5dAc4IV9P5JYu0iAYKTf3TOgMMIMkr++/7eagYb/HdmOP0x6GagH5t8A0uL3qoRUmIL1HjxdJNoFsK7jIKe3FsK64kWBltIi7ciw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=XXpYRfol4LQU6QOEr5+cLLURaxS+kDlXSSoa9QwJZM3sinzcM65PoFKxAnp7izKnSGmmggPobCjrD4B2McRobHAss1S1Y+y7deAzTHVUO4NmxikmPN+cvgRlRcB4633855nSZ01DfI9bzxpfnaMDRYT88uIegfT+sovM+Bjhyrg=
Received: by 10.141.36.10 with SMTP id o10mr212489rvj.176.1198177727035; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:08:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.249.19 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:08:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e70833f50712201108v284939bqed11a315a0fbda76@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:08:47 -0500
From: Jagrati Shringi <shringi@gmail.com>
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_13153_11468928.1198177727028"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab
X-TMDA-Confirmed: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:19:35 -0500
Subject: BFD Admin-down
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
I have a question regarding BFD state - Administratively-down. The base draft recommend that we send a packet with Local state: Down and Appropriate diag in this case and then stop transmitting control packets. This way we will send very few or may be one packet with state down and diagnostic:7 . My question is, this seem to be the only case in BFD where we will not be able to maintain correct diagnostic on remote end, in case the packet carrying this information is dropped. If the peer does not receive this packet, it will move to down-state with Diag :Control Detection Time Expired, instead of Neighbor Signaled Session Down. Please let me know what is the recommended approach in this case, so that we maintain right state/diag code on peer, even if we loose some packets. Thanks in advance for your help. Jagrati Shringi, Senior Software engineer, ECI Telecom.
- BFD Admin-down Jagrati Shringi
- RE: BFD Admin-down Nitin Bahadur