RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> Wed, 03 December 2014 23:25 UTC
Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
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 8536C1A6EE9 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:25:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 CWHUQsGfA2QF for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B91F1A3BA4 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:25:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-3f-547f3fac6cd8
Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6C.AF.25146.CAF3F745; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 17:51:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:25:25 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
Thread-Topic: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
Thread-Index: AQHQCQ6qQ6amXjPuFEmbPIOgLl4p2pxyzfeAgAAfxYCAAAeVAIAAjSUAgAD7mQCAAEe3gIABbj6AgAARfwCAAAtmAIAAF9PggASh4oD///wSUIACoyWAgADg8VA=
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 23:25:25 +0000
Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8AA754@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <007701d00af9$28719050$7954b0f0$@chinamobile.com> <D09E5FAC.27C51%mmudigon@cisco.com> <007e01d00b07$9c02cc10$d4086430$@chinamobile.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8998E7@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <00a001d00d64$7735ce50$65a16af0$@chinamobile.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8A87E6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <730769BB-D021-4E22-878A-2C289822A156@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <730769BB-D021-4E22-878A-2C289822A156@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8AA754eusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprAIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt+5a+/oQgy2NihbrG16wW5x+s47N 4sirY8wWn/9sY3Rg8Zh3YSGbx5TfG1k9ds66y+6xZMlPpgCWKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6MU8sf MBYsOMZU8WH9RMYGxjt7mboYOTkkBEwkHr5ezwphi0lcuLeeDcQWEjjCKDHtoFMXIxeQvYxR ovfbEbAEm4CRxIuNPewgtoiAocSpAy+YQIqYBdoYJRreTAIrEgZKrOpeDFVkJHFsxlx2kCIR gS5GiSXXVoKtZhFQkbj3ZwMLiM0r4Cux6NhXJoh1bcwSK7YeA7uJU8BWYsmxO4wgNiPQfd9P rQFrZhYQl7j1ZD7UDwISS/acZ4awRSVePv4H9Y+SxKSl51gh6vMlth16zw6xTFDi5MwnLBMY RWchGTULSdksJGWzGDmA4poS63fpQ5QoSkzpfsgOYWtItM6Zy44svoCRfRUjR2lxalluupHh JkZgFB6TYHPcwbjgk+UhRgEORiUeXgOeuhAh1sSy4srcQ4zSHCxK4rya1fOChQTSE0tSs1NT C1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTAu/Cmu0hapf34Tt+jVHqsbDy80i0zv3Xixb7LzASUf3eINTBNu qJczuAhYRc5+t7DzxtxnNrq8xyecVzbbZH183tOqtIa/D66pdp9+eDeuKpPrfdJOuV+LN1Qy L7sUs1dJ6sWGjNLn2aqtvuUuYou7dxq+rVlSZZ/IdC3Pab1NOMMOb+UfokZKLMUZiYZazEXF iQBEaQ3NowIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/fQ4lT9zh3TcXUSXmjxhutkzvTiM
Cc: "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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 23:25:37 -0000
Hi Mahesh, I consider issues of debugability, not of just BFD but any other standardized protocol, to be outside of Standard track, at most to be suitable for Informational or Experimental track. If we agree on that, then we can discuss scenarios that present problem and investigate whether anything in the protocol requires clarification to help vendors in building well-performing, scalable and interoperable implementations and provide operational guidelines for operators. Regards, Greg From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 8:46 PM To: Gregory Mirsky Cc: Fan, Peng; MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon); rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Greg, What is Peng referring to is a way to figure out why a particular BFD session flapped, particularly if the packet(s) for that session arrive late. I do not see how that can be performance measurement. It is basic BFD debug ability. Running a separate DM does tell you why a particular BFD session flapped. Now we can debate what methods can be employed to measure that delay and I am open to ways to doing it, including local loopback to measure transmit delays or time stamping of packets in hardware. But in cases, where there is no support for either of the capabilities, one of the suggested solutions is to use the time stamps carried in the BFD payload. Cheers. On Dec 1, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com<mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hi Peng, and still, you’re looking for a tool to measure BFD performance. Then you’ll be looking for a tool to verify the BFD performance measurement, and on, and on. Operators do need complete set of FCAPS tools, including performance measurement. Note that passive performance measurement through marking method that Mach Chen referred to can monitor BFD flow(s) and be used to do Loss and/or Delay Measurement. And active Synthetic Loss Measurement may simulate flow of small packets as well as relatively large packets. And the same goes for active measurement method of Delay Measurement. I like Swiss Army knives but let us not turn BFD into one. Regards, Greg From: Fan, Peng [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 4:44 AM To: Gregory Mirsky; 'MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)'; rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Hi Gregory, I was just giving an example :) Application traffic usually cannot stand small packet loss, not to say 30% loss. I am actually asking for a debug function that could give us some useful hints of poor connection with small protocol change, besides the basic connectivity information. If it measures something, it measures packets of BFD itself. So I don’t expect it to be considered as a performance measurement tool. Best regards, Peng From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:37 AM To: Fan, Peng; 'MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)'; rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Hi Peng, this is very interesting scenario. I think that if BFD experiences ~30% packet loss, then highly likely so are affected other applications. Then it is not just BFD issue but condition that should be detected by performance measurement method, whether active or passive packet loss measurement. I’m convinced that overloading BFD with performance measurement provisions is counter-productive and is inappropriate. Regards, Greg From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fan, Peng Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 4:34 AM To: 'MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)'; rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Hi Mallik, Exactly. Packets may be experiencing slight loss, but the link can hardly be regarded as connected. More importantly, the experience of upper-level applications can be degraded severely (e.g. TCP traffic is not able to go fast in face of even small continuous loss). But what if one BFD frame is lost every three frames? Then the loss rate is 30% on average, which is already a very severe value. Best regards, Peng From: MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon) [mailto:mmudigon@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 7:53 PM To: Fan, Peng; rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Hi Peng, If the BFD packets are lost, doesn’t the BFD session go DOWN? Are you saying that packet loss is not big enough to make BFD session go DOWN? Thanks Regards Mallik From: <Fan>, Peng <fanpeng@chinamobile.com<mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com>> Date: Friday, 28 November 2014 4:20 pm To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Hi Jeff, all, I have been following this stability extension from the beginning, and as an operator I would like to express that this draft enables the "advanced feature" we desire for BFD to provide additional useful information that helps operators understand network issues. A relevant use case is detecting lossy or "quasi-disconnected" links or member LAG links. An example of such situation we experienced was a loosely connected fiber link resulting in continuous, small amount of packet loss. BFD could get the information of lost BFD frames on such unstable link, and probably report when a target level is reached, say a certain number of frames are lost over a period or among a total number of frames. Best regards, Peng Mahesh Jethanandani Co-chair, NETCONF WG mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
- BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Jeffrey Haas
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Mach Chen
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Mach Chen
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Abhishek Verma
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Fan, Peng
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Fan, Peng
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Jeffrey Haas
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Fan, Peng
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Nobo Akiya (nobo)
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Nobo Akiya (nobo)
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Jeffrey Haas
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Sam K. Aldrin
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Sam K. Aldrin
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Sam K. Aldrin
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Santosh P K
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Sam Aldrin
- RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Gregory Mirsky
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Manav Bhatia
- Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91 Marc Binderberger
- TWAMP analysis for assisting BFD debuggin (was Re… Jeffrey Haas
- RE: TWAMP analysis for assisting BFD debuggin (wa… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: TWAMP analysis for assisting BFD debuggin (wa… Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: TWAMP analysis for assisting BFD debuggin (wa… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: TWAMP analysis for assisting BFD debuggin (wa… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: TWAMP analysis for assisting BFD debuggin (wa… Jeffrey Haas