IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Fri, 20 December 2019 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.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 36D9D120807; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:35:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=DI4cSaLX; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Jmidemzv
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 matq5xR_JkGN; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:35:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5BB120806; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:35:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1098; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1576834502; x=1578044102; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=j0XVS/TC8xYH/uvveDwys4ZO14q+AKmmBGDoJZ7gezc=; b=DI4cSaLXRYLON/is47wDEy55elDAa9VsDXeDLoiFT72JfHA9RakXc+2I AwwXm4DZlOtA+zYzvNYYBfthG/xz4dcZ8sDb+kZe+6slhzrdTSx6MiAUa C51728GUHLHMS7Y/HwOApkaAt1+ENRblc++uZ4NcqHldMIhRQtiCeRFYH I=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:ulofzRJtg21KxheNDtmcpTVXNCE6p7X5OBIU4ZM7irVIN76u5InmIFeBvad2lFGcW4Ld5roEkOfQv636EU04qZea+DFnEtRXUgMdz8AfngguGsmAXEDlPfjhbCESF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B+AQB+lfxd/4gNJK1kHAEBAQEBBwEBEQEEBAEBgWsEAQELAYFMUAWBRCAECyqEB4NGA4pzgjqYLYJSA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAheCBSQ3Bg4CAw0BAQQBAQECAQUEbYU3DIVfAgEDEhERDAEBNwEPAgEIDgwCJgICAjAVBQsCBAENBSKDAIJHAy4BoB4CgTiIYXWBMoJ+AQEFhRwYggwJgQ4oAYwYGoFBP4ERJwwUgkw+hGCCeTKCLJA4nlkKgjSWGBuaVYNHiwqaVAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaCOBWHAVZQGCQVAYDY0SOIM7ilN0gSiSMAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,335,1571702400"; d="scan'208";a="394288423"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 20 Dec 2019 09:34:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBK9Yv4K023243 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:34:57 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 03:34:56 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 03:34:55 -0600
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 03:34:55 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=L7UrAATJMs4syODsscuJz9UiIQofpiz8Pc7WpuxiVdM3Uy7Yf0x7XCQIWxpO++JF/ISDqMvzBDPm55gr5bhpNfWXj+yspPn44HoH2WWYUMcdIaEFCYo/RI2vaTRhVpwQL1+UcpjCSh9Xd//mBtOEOYLwzjYOtMxryIN6PL0TAlfBxkuJhqywxhAS0LIo/VtKmBBe1n/3FNW4hth5xcvN3BV+RW57WRilhlTodvRbwrdk02Y0yRX4yHEwF15lY0Wyq6RSdLWbLKhusJzCy3gf/7UvfcoxVxI2XO6yNDx8s3/JbsAFpWoJRf0toaU0NtcQmYE8uAuN4fWcKs6rqPscIQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=j0XVS/TC8xYH/uvveDwys4ZO14q+AKmmBGDoJZ7gezc=; b=GbBHa2XQVTqkpoGXfc59hhvstrDa3gCuzc14Pr5qljomEmx+fyTeJd0DvL+3uvWsMIfwGT2OOurindyv7TtOqKTkqyc551eCI9R9lFBO9zXahd1520y/juHpx4zqiJj+AjTC0NCS5ANp2PkILL7KPxxHvXKy9QrecGguwPgvCeVeg5cD0k9nh5RsrT/SgFwtUJxhMLO4n+IVeAsM5CDVPkwFP83GMR5IWxYSigttwEAtLHPXBCrwTbXgXd53wSz/GK14DmSsDI8ft6tl2N1Auvz8NnfbMOg2H3Gthfvwr0eQ8p+Nf9U6F1/G87NB97lG/4abICKX57Ohk9EJtJb3ug==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=j0XVS/TC8xYH/uvveDwys4ZO14q+AKmmBGDoJZ7gezc=; b=JmidemzvcCGephFGDx0CaIVnXTqaAwAh1FDh2P1x1ESy6wEJO9G5ACKRHqWyv4bXyRN+G5zeOA0WmaaGxfPLUAd9s/iCAT3ZhxpZjIEFMV7EH8EsuQfEFH5YfqR6TbM9S/xL/LT63ET54jxQOyJLnaq4qjbi9UUkd1YlSlvQWKY=
Received: from DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.88.141) by DM5PR11MB1689.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.168.108.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2538.20; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:34:54 +0000
Received: from DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f8ba:7d8d:391d:4302]) by DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f8ba:7d8d:391d:4302%12]) with mapi id 15.20.2559.012; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:34:54 +0000
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
CC: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org>, "bfd-chairs@ietf.org" <bfd-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVtpb95ryADAJO5Ui6+24NC5naA6fB5DkAgAAHBQCAAOnPAA==
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:34:54 +0000
Message-ID: <BF932724-2903-42A0-8CD7-FB4BC62E408F@cisco.com>
References: <157657269782.26511.12421406428553874826.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CED2B858-AC55-4B0A-ADA2-AC46B628E6DA@cisco.com> <20191218203145.GD6488@pfrc.org> <FE5AEE55-9F03-49E9-89C3-6C9700C8683E@cisco.com> <20191218214102.GF6488@pfrc.org> <B88794A5-553E-453D-8CAF-1D05FCA56C1E@cisco.com> <20191219180609.GA27686@pfrc.org> <4744CBE3-E9EC-439D-B699-C301CFF200D3@cisco.com> <20191219203804.GB31892@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20191219203804.GB31892@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: fr-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.20.0.191208
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=evyncke@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c1:36:b427:b647:1e61:1da1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 630a3408-4c52-4cf6-1b4a-08d7852fdf0c
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR11MB1689:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR11MB1689A798808129B1A7BB4134A92D0@DM5PR11MB1689.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:6790;
x-forefront-prvs: 025796F161
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(376002)(396003)(366004)(189003)(199004)(478600001)(6636002)(224303003)(4326008)(54906003)(33656002)(110136005)(6486002)(71200400001)(4744005)(316002)(2616005)(86362001)(91956017)(76116006)(36756003)(66946007)(6512007)(5660300002)(66556008)(2906002)(81166006)(81156014)(64756008)(66476007)(186003)(66446008)(8936002)(6506007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR11MB1689; H:DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: UKr2R6yIMwBvjusgnLS0KMhYk8se3GDx2SrAyj29Zka7Dj+zQzMuXtCpMGqqtduIvdTRju14A3FcFiG1bgv5UiaZsql1vtovDqWogzrPb7q76bu7GwUsjJz+0Q33nMVOTP3wxUKw4sAW8zPg4fUVJPM0buNHpw0xPoCpwQQ7if3uwMxbqWdVXxJIl34BEOLJgn6mzJyYMrP4zmOWYopv9OlZkjsIXkRieV91AFEOAOsuwKJduLwBt1mWIW3Mm2e63XJgs60wL1WKWOJiW39wC5qnfUBQDwZS6d5a6kUGRyBf61s0bmAZ9+oYc1MipCJBflcRDlV9kne5e1xDhHGqW0N9av7aKHyuNoxLTqrqE23h+ii1YzQatYVDB3WtJ/LjTgg7vS8BD2lOvh1Rh3CFkbvyc8LgVRne6rL9guth0sEw/HT00RC/vyGzFkTU/CIX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3CA5FD89FBB60540ABD651066A9AA578@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 630a3408-4c52-4cf6-1b4a-08d7852fdf0c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Dec 2019 09:34:54.6854 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: IbqnUB99/KW4pUbkq3Ce19g1lbuT7TfeY9chHXeNEwpCCauDy3gt1bEh/F5x18VhnEBkwvAGjTQ3foAifHHLXw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR11MB1689
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.20, xch-aln-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/f7Sv2hRsEFbjxqkDIkXP6QJqOR8>
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:35:04 -0000

Jeffrey,

If you and the authors are ambivalent to HL=255, then I would suggest to stick to the original BFD spec and use HL=255

Regards

-éric

On 19/12/2019, 21:33, "iesg on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" <iesg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

    
    See my prior ambivalence. :-)  It's reasonable modulo one of the two prior
    implementations saying "this is a big deal!" to say "for our purposes, we
    wish to use the security considerations of 5881".  As I noted for the IESG,
    the considerations we have currently reflect 5884.  And while your
    explanation for 5884's situation was helpful, I'm not entirely clear why the
    vxlan encapsulation is so entirely different with regard to its impact vs.
    MPLS and thus the 5884 scenario.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email