RE: WGLC for BFD over Link Aggregate Group Interfaces - ends November 8

["Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mahesh,

This draft only talks about BFD sessions between directly connected boxes.

> For initial DOWN BFD packet, where the Your Discriminator field is 0,
> the draft suggests that demultiplexing MUST be based on some
> combination of other fields which MUST include the interface
> information of the member link. That assumes that systems are aware of
> what interface the BFD packet came on. That is not always the case, and
> in a global label/IP space, systems do not have to know the physical

Can you explain the scenario where you think its not possible for a system to know the ifindex of the IP interface over which an incoming packet arrived?

> link traffic came on. I am struggling to suggest an alternative, but
> would like to see the issue addressed particularly since it is a MUST.
> 
> Same is true for the procedure for the reception of BFD control packet
> and its verification of the interface that it came on.

I think youre missing something because we already have 3 interoperable implementations of this draft. Clearly, those implementations were able to identify the IP interface over which the uBFD packet arrived.

Cheers, Manav

> 
> On Oct 24, 2013, at 10:00 PM, Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) wrote:
> 
> > Support
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
> > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 12:45 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: WGLC for BFD over Link Aggregate Group Interfaces - ends
> November 8
> >
> > This email is to initiate working group last call on the BFD on Link
> Aggregate Group Interfaces document:
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-01
> >
> > The last call will complete on November 8, the end of IETF week.
> Time will be available during the Vancouver IETF BFD session to discuss
> last call comments.
> >
> > Nobo Akiya will be serving as document shepherd (RFC 4858) for this
> WGLC.
> >
> > Due to the small nature of the BFD working group and the fact that
> both working group chairs have contributed to this document, we have
> gotten Carlos Pignataro ([e-mail]) to volunteer to serve as
> an independent party to gauge working group consensus.
> >
> > In order to facilitate the transparency of this WGLC, please remember
> to send all comments to the working group mailing list.
> >
> > IPR declarations have been filed against this draft and the document
> authors and contributors have been polled for any further IPR.  Current
> IPR declarations may be seen at the following link:
> >
> >
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft
> -ietf-bfd-on-lags
> >
> > If you are aware of additional IPR against this document please
> declare so, per the IETF Note Well.
> >
> > Finally, the IEEE has expressed interest in the disposition of this
> draft.
> > They will likely provide additional commentary, if any, via the IETF
> liaison process.  This process will likely happen after WGLC concludes.
> Depending on their feedback, WGLC may re-open to address their
> concerns.
> >
> > -- Jeff (for the chairs)
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail]
> 
>