RE: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net> Fri, 17 July 2015 04:55 UTC

Return-Path: <santoshpk@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D571B2BEF for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 v0bH9mYDq8N5 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0132.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04C671B2C34 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SN1PR0501MB1760.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.130.27) by SN1PR0501MB1758.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.130.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.213.14; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 04:51:54 +0000
Received: from SN1PR0501MB1760.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.130.27]) by SN1PR0501MB1760.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.130.27]) with mapi id 15.01.0213.000; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 04:51:54 +0000
From: Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net>
To: "S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02
Thread-Topic: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02
Thread-Index: AQHQwEgIPZdhO5dkFk6Amlitcm2dOJ3fF7Rw
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 04:51:54 +0000
Message-ID: <SN1PR0501MB1760DEF6CC53A314DE76DC22B3980@SN1PR0501MB1760.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D1CD4981.4517%mmudigon@cisco.com> <OFFC8D1A54.3565CD48-ON48257E84.0023896D-48257E84.00293A35@zte.com.cn> <SN1PR0501MB1760617949C9921E5A5E12ADB3980@SN1PR0501MB1760.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <7CD7F2E3-88E5-4237-8FCC-BA95FAD7F281@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <7CD7F2E3-88E5-4237-8FCC-BA95FAD7F281@yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: yahoo.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.13]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN1PR0501MB1758; 5:CFwVwqzYNOuCM8RqXm63WCJWyckx7LvQHaqc/highuDhhW5CFwBa5AdaKwL9veXJZ7MsUMoyfLF+d1jE/0zs//9nE+XdLhPDxnJVFMwZH8D803G8TUd9svP4dw9+Po6kmmcIChSDTCLd75gIi9qp/Q==; 24:QegXTTHDfPIqNYxJ5wEjERePtMVY7ly2T52QNtRqb74+LTu3Eh7UTJ8ciEFodyyfri0VibFhCTsy+6SIHMiJSn9UCnVzJuaekVhCs5suTg8=; 20:zWG+oeg0Jykw0KCpUlDbjwDJ/2ZhOzyqf2md0No6TQpb7Yd2ir1cEHrMwVCrU6DwDrr/LmuE4MtBfScZUF4awA==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN1PR0501MB1758;
sn1pr0501mb1758: X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RulesExecuted
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN1PR0501MB1758317CBC197C2FD9647EA4B3980@SN1PR0501MB1758.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(108003899814671);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(3002001); SRVR:SN1PR0501MB1758; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN1PR0501MB1758;
x-forefront-prvs: 06400060E1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(377454003)(377424004)(24454002)(57704003)(189998001)(86362001)(5001960100002)(5003600100002)(76576001)(15975445007)(110136002)(2900100001)(5890100001)(66066001)(77156002)(19300405004)(77096005)(93886004)(74316001)(16236675004)(92566002)(40100003)(62966003)(106116001)(50986999)(19625215002)(230783001)(19617315012)(46102003)(87936001)(102836002)(122556002)(33656002)(2950100001)(5002640100001)(2521001)(19580395003)(19609705001)(19580405001)(2656002)(76176999)(54356999)(99286002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN1PR0501MB1758; H:SN1PR0501MB1760.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_SN1PR0501MB1760DEF6CC53A314DE76DC22B3980SN1PR0501MB1760_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Jul 2015 04:51:54.2374 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1PR0501MB1758
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/ecR3NLe2w3NlFKuzvX93tZLsSjw>
Cc: "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 17 Jul 2015 04:55:16 -0000

Sharam,
   True but here it is 5884 and for 5884 (MPLS BFD) we do bootstrapping using LSP ping and that exchange discr right? So you should ideally not receive any BFD packet with your_disc = 0.

Thanks
Santosh P K

From: S. Davari [mailto:davarish@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 9:51 AM
To: Santosh P K
Cc: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn; MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon); rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

Hi Santosh

I think the issue is the first BFD packet that has your Desc =0. Question is how to differentiate them when they are from different ingress LSR.

Regards,
Shahram


On Jul 16, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net<mailto:santoshpk@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hello Deccan, MALLIK and Shahram,
     I want to understand why do we need this? When BFD bootstrapping is completed then we use local discr (BFD packet your discr) as a key which will be unique with in the local system. Please take a look at below section of RFC 5880.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5880#section-6.3

We don’t need to really use any other fields as we would have exchanged the discr using LSP ping. I might have misunderstood your question and would like to be corrected.


Thanks
Santosh P K

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:00 PM
To: MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; S. Davari
Subject: 答复: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02


Hi Mallik

Source address is also a good method. But it is better to form as standard.

thanks




"MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <mmudigon@cisco.com<mailto:mmudigon@cisco.com>>

2015-07-16 下午 02:16

收件人

"S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com<mailto:davarish@yahoo.com>>, "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>>

抄送

"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>

主题

Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02







Hi,

I think the question is 2 different ingress LSRs using the same FEC, LSP, Discriminator values. Discriminator values can be the same for 2 different ingress LSRs and if the other values are same we can always use the Source address to differentiate. Am I missing something?

Regards
Mallik

From: "S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com<mailto:davarish@yahoo.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 20:12
To: "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>>
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

Hi

Why can't the ingress allocate different LD to each of those BFD sessions?

Regards,
Shahram


On Jul 15, 2015, at 7:30 AM, "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>> wrote:


hi authors

It is neccessary to address the case that different ingress LSR establish BFD session with the same egress LSR, with same FEC, same local descriminator.
I think it is very useful to introduce a BFD Initiator TLV to LSP ping echo request message, to distinguish different ingress LSR. So that ingress allocate LD based on tuple <FEC, LSP> as defined in this draft, but egress allocate LD based on tuple <Initiator, FEC, RD>.

thanks
deccan


--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.





--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.







--------------------------------------------------------

ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.