Some questions on the BFD Performance draft
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 17 March 2018 18:00 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 DE1F4129C6D; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Va7aK1BFrad0; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9F11129C6E; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id e5-v6so15792086lfb.7; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lSxJ4/eMRAAtygGz0GO+fJfVZFDlW+J++/vfRu9NuP0=; b=GqyqlQZZ1+JBcVXDSqUfMu1ukY2jMphpc3A9IyINLuOVefYLzQtLN/ijRNLBBP8+1D bPjF0OCQIsbMlFcYQpQJkIOpgKPbTX9N4LQkE3zOUULUHMGJwcCuKIA287zjQR/pD5nu ZrfnH6LVZPrIwipH9YrDqheZ5jIkDnhPi5xkmRVbleOnChLkPD7kNmnMwRrN2qm43ogF vDfDrigY8p0yQCLQ30sO2ck+vPhqB2cZziqcDOoSIvVYbRPoVMjeqQ2Kxh+81352TjX/ YWeMkcnMARjATgqR0qtHMdHdIS7Uz/NHwNaDhMT7SoP5nLR5vKfO9GPLgUKHa/4KTUZf /U/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lSxJ4/eMRAAtygGz0GO+fJfVZFDlW+J++/vfRu9NuP0=; b=fgDkzlgdBCp8DkE8In0/F8XkjfYvzSm8Yo8wKdOymbQcmE8E0WI9GMu8ywhuIXfc9G Ld3W9Gse7UVYRZzc0ifi0GfCBBTE98hIn+nv1ocXo+R31iPmOQPu20qKLtvXoo+926Fy DpoS43Mm1tHyoQh3LiP78SeFVZ14ElCWz/9h8nKTEz2CD36nqQkSnUE+H+NhX9IDjImt F6n4QY5DDhoSw6tuU5BLhI61b+DbFo9acA9Sgc4XYkqyaQ9FEdNgPhCCB8vZ60gUCUqD r4p5SvA548nqA1Xj4GgKHjHu6GnDjZRxdyx0GUZU3D0pPGGmL+e4nzIjpSqYq2Nk35iL ddmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FrPwN9ndXcpNTfEyxx4w3jP0wrpdzf3e9p7iFAixzeD1NHA917 2e5BQosP9fEBq0bWZ9X2EALRW9C7lMzxF6cxrAc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsQm3UKo96W+5qLf6xk2lQcmj56Tp9RLgs/hBFNkuMQy7jyBVLWRj/G2s0cBJ0khlttH6e4Iy7jnKEZpCJuRCE=
X-Received: by 10.46.69.85 with SMTP id s82mr4071240lja.19.1521309601827; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.145.195 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:00:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXHKY8ZR3u82f-9OTfEdgef7px_cNxYzk_W4q9YLtynqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Some questions on the BFD Performance draft
To: draft-am-bfd-performance@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b0fce69112505679f7e71"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/hhVBjLIP2iPLCH0RjZeIuOaVBEs>
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: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 18:00:24 -0000
Dear Authors, I've read the new draft and have some questions that I would like us to discuss: - which of BFD modes, Async, Demand or Echo, you envision to be used by this new TLV; - what interval between the BFD control packets with BFD Performance TLV would you use; - the BFD Performance TLV has space for four timestamps. Should that suggest that only Echo mode will be used to measure delay? Because if you use Asunc or Demand, then I don't see the need for four timestamp as two will be sufficient. In these modes you can only perform one-way measurement (of course, one can envision implementation that will read timestamp from the remote peer and copy them into the outgoing control packet). Thus, how useful to have measurement result at the far end when it is the sender that is interested in it? Why not to use one of existing PM OAM tools, TWAMP, TWAMP Light or STAMP? Regards, Greg
- Some questions on the BFD Performance draft Greg Mirsky
- Re: Some questions on the BFD Performance draft Mahesh Jethanandani