IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Correcting BFD Echo model

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 24 March 2017 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 960AC1200FC; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 79S1tLnoBRXI; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90D2129766; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EDE161E34B; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:46:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:46:40 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf. org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Correcting BFD Echo model
Message-ID: <20170324154640.GO27015@pfrc.org>
References: <CA+RyBmWcU79iCBYM_bi__Ce1RpWwNn_jZCkPHv3Sc+qtybt_pg@mail.gmail.com> <D4D8BE31.25AE5C%rrahman@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWyQZs5B3LG8x=ZoVXTkiHhGPzbZwRX70jCyT_MpQwzCA@mail.gmail.com> <E308FD25-A695-498C-8E34-756250776CE4@gmail.com> <CA+RyBmW=t0DH5H_UVau8t5rS_1A8Qpsh478ayVUN=Se6qqKHyg@mail.gmail.com> <D4D9967A.25B679%rrahman@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmV9QiGGCgxxEHmC8GjnecHksjfZgVO3NJ5q2aLSSrZMvA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmV9QiGGCgxxEHmC8GjnecHksjfZgVO3NJ5q2aLSSrZMvA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/fuVZeXR0a2afC2tRdWKIWLn1jlM>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 24 Mar 2017 15:40:17 -0000

[continuing the top-posting heresy to preserve context]

Greg,

Our schedule is relatively open right now, and this matter is esoteric
enough that it probably warrants a slide for the majority of the Working
Group to follow this issue.  Would you prepare a slide or two to use as a
discussion point?

I'll also use this opportunity to point out that in S-BFD scenarios, we have
somewhat similar ambiguities since it's an on-demand service.

-- Jeff

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:31:01AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Reshad,
> thank you for providing the context to BFD Echo TX. Indeed, I'm familiar
> with implementations that use BFD Echo as Echo request/reply and thus Tx
> would be in RPC, not in configuration. I think that it would be good to
> discuss this in Chicago unless we hear comments from others on the list.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > draft-zheng-mpls-ls-ping-yang-cfg defines transmit interval in RPC
> > because all ping operations are done via RPC.  I do not consider BFD echo
> > to be “on demand” like LSP Ping (caveat: this is possibly due to the BFD
> > configuration/implementation I am most familiar with).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email