RE: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Naiming –

Inline…

From: Naiming Shen (naiming)
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:12 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets


It probably should say “the payload size MAY be increased to this value and it is
not recommended for a BFD session to always use the large size packet for padding.
How frequent the large size packet being used is application specific”.

[Les:] This does not address the question as to why we want to use a mechanism specifically designed for sub-second detection for this case.
??? (Note that it does not come for free. ☺ )

for the variety of encaps, the internal application probably can deduced from a
BFD one into their own as long as we have a number for path MTU.

[Les:] If “your” MTU requirements are smaller than “mine” – would you want the BFD session to go down even though you could continue to use the link successfully?

   Les

thanks.
- Naiming

On Oct 20, 2018, at 5:14 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

I have some concerns.

It has been stated that there is a need for sub-second detection of this condition – but I really question that requirement.
What I would expect is that MTU changes only occur as a result of some maintenance operation (configuration change, link addition/bringup, insertion of a new box in the physical path etc.). The idea of using a mechanism which is specifically tailored for sub-second detection to monitor something that is only going to change occasionally seems inappropriate. It makes me think that other mechanisms (some form of OAM, enhancements to routing protocols to do what IS-IS already does ☺) could be more appropriate and would still meet the operational requirements.

I have listened to the Montreal recording – and I know there was discussion related to these issues (not sending padded packets all the time, use of BFD echo, etc.) – but I would be interested in more discussion of the need for sub-second detection.

Also, given that a path might be used with a variety of encapsulations, how do you see such a mechanism being used when multiple BFD clients share the same BFD session and their MTU constraints are different?

Thanx.

   Les


From: Rtg-bfd <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 6:06 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

Hello BFD WG,

We have received an adoption request for “BFD encapsulated in large packets”.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-bfd-large-packets/

The adoption call will end on Friday Nov 9th.

Please send email to the list indicating “yes/support”  or “no/do not support”. If you do not support adoption, please state your reasons.

Regards,
Reshad & Jeff.