IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comment on DestinationMac in draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 04 October 2012 18:25 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 5198721F86B0 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.343
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8abaj-24kOYC for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDFB21F8648 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 792C6C3A9; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:25:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:25:36 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "JOVELPONNAIEN, ARULMOHAN (ARULMOHAN)" <arulmohan.jovelponnaien@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: Comment on DestinationMac in draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags
Message-ID: <20121004182536.GY1854@pfrc>
References: <7A2E55DFE338EE418E3B95A0C388997D075E407F79@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAF4+nEE6kK5WfSonT14z-rz4iFHS7JFvVry+xS1a9c+Waxvebw@mail.gmail.com> <2C22A8F0-BBC9-413C-9AD9-95813973BAA9@sniff.de> <7A2E55DFE338EE418E3B95A0C388997D075E408279@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7A2E55DFE338EE418E3B95A0C388997D075E408279@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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 Oct 2012 18:25:37 -0000

Arul,

On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:55:20PM +0530, JOVELPONNAIEN, ARULMOHAN (ARULMOHAN) wrote:
> I understand your reasoning for using IANA MAC address instead of IEEE.
> But it would be still good to define a jabber control mechanism or
> indicate micro-BFD is not supported over L2 bridges.

Until a BFD session transitions to the Up state, it will use the sedate
timers.  In this case, 1 message per second.

As mentioned elsewhere, we intend to explore work to do BFD over LAG over
switches in the future.  Some of the initial speculation of such a feature
is that the multicast MAC would be used as part of service discovery.  Once
the session is ready to transition to the Up state, it is very likely that a
unicast MAC would be used for the destination.

But again, this is speculation and work that is deferred for the future.

-- Jeff (speaking as an individual contributor)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email