IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <manavbhatia@gmail.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 4344F1AD4B6 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:29:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 yR5yxyB0M21O for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:29:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 815F61AD4AF for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id vb8so3081319obc.28 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:29:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=x6EzThvWRJSsbrGY+FAzPfRyJ1cLFZVdD5VkQ0kbU9I=; b=YHgD1JolE9yVF1M9dANIN99AxfPn5tDBEm/rJf5Ukfa6Snsj7L4GIh1hY5tmjrLfHT sS9f0UCkLTOXNCPPWBgxP5KzRVpl4jRNgWWxAJoJFaKl10erNPvDeLI54Eqwr1fYkqcw kDg1uuw9lWD2yp7f3tpiyllaA/hVyhwZOhhZcsOhoR3/6hTh2smw1LQJr4FDCt81E6M7 Pt8PwlP2sXDvOyESUeaunKNBHrt0DD5IpnRrWDaEWYSmaa2qA3pK3cR3CzjNHAaEITLF XzqYIxn/fICVbFHsTYlW15AFbXggZcWVJWwjt2LZ6hIJxdlGJ4aWCq2fG7lw46tjRfLA /KuA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.67.165 with SMTP id o5mr7485014oet.24.1417710547753; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.178.199 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:29:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8AAC0D@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> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8AA754@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <09CD6B2F-4DCC-429F-848B-223C72A0F171@gmail.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8AAA24@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <CO2PR0501MB8231A4913DEB31323847CA8B3780@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8AAC0D@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:59:07 +0530
Message-ID: <CAG1kdojkECcodXOxB8v-EHxbpotvjWHXGti6YDSg1oA9edD4tg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
From: Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c31dd897e1fa0509667536"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jHWkjB72j2n_zXwmzurzBILPHZY
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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:29:17 -0000

I am not sure what the confusion is Greg.

Assume i have a BFD session thats up. At some point in time it flaps. Now i
need to know whether the issue was at the TX or the RX.

Please tell me how TWAMP can help me here. Also tell me how what tool i can
use if its a uBFD session that flapped.

Cheers, Manav

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
wrote:

>  Hi Santosh,
>
> but that is what can be called “feature creep”. BFD is continuity check
> mechanism and for active performance measurement, even occasional, there
> are TWAMP in IP and RFC 6374/6375 in MPLS/MPLS-TP. It may be tempting to
> expand scope of BFD but, I believe, it is successful exactly because it was
> simple, light-weight and designed to do exactly one thing – continuity
> check.
>
>
>
>                 Regards,
>
>                                 Greg
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email