Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com> Mon, 08 December 2014 04:03 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 0309B1A1BF6 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 20:03:13 -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 GBqAUM71r90a for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 20:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 181A11A1BF4 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 20:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id uz6so3083912obc.30 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:03:11 -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=eEvu/ls1AtputEs02+PnHDj9e8E4EgVIGhVKetfInoE=; b=bZzC6ipNbqwqFGjHo0BGzsnwywJqkibk4rHW1O9pVuPEQAAzV8oWBuyS84YBOxCifp ED0tDMdXNlq6+f5+vdMCEJEa7tPNcFPBCdwdQdfC/WnRuxhqVmjH8fehzrh+l/woqTwA OfnFYNMndRAvAz7pwv8W/exmwwlgaXw+FvXKp+FDq8f561GvL5W9rzG1x/8ZO+m9jiGw GY7C5wXbSkX2G4YPhaxje/RXHu7ldHkVMrH3+Py4Xa2CTF9isiUlgJgJhFg7EXejRX9v pJDK2nunGANw+MOWXrgbVz6EWDQecwmJHU4Y/hlmLwKKT3StyzK5E9qjraZFgBSCDvnn l3Tg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.69.137 with SMTP id s131mr5541411oia.103.1418011385465; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:03:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.178.199 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 20:03:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141207193610211284.1f098741@sniff.de>
References: <CO2PR0501MB823C222B7D62779F4DF58CDB3780@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D0A647C1.28843%mmudigon@cisco.com> <CO2PR0501MB8234A1BDDFD008EE12C847AB3780@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5AE38D@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <CAG1kdogkUr2YyodeUPWOqea+2jqOkmdYnPywVHCw8j1+=9eM6A@mail.gmail.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5AE4AE@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <CAG1kdoh5DwdKrJWK_aSvo4KQ6Xu5ZaTObe_PLhV66YZ4yQozmg@mail.gmail.com> <20141207193610211284.1f098741@sniff.de>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:33:05 +0530
Message-ID: <CAG1kdojxdDY0qXPYnZ5K67rizVaD7gHte1MdRA2q==K6SoRVsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
From: Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>
To: Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113dae32eb15280509ac801e"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/ocK8lp6G71PVRYnTOmnGej_P_n8
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: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 04:03:14 -0000

Hi Marc,


>
> * Greg's echo idea is of course do-able - when you think timestamping in
> hardware can be done then it can be done in the forwarding path for echos
> as
> well. Depends on your hardware :-) and on an agreed (minimal) format for
> echo. As mentioned BFD echo is not defined/used for multiple BFD features,
> which limits it's use though.
>
>
For the echo mechanism to work, do you agree that you would have to
continuously send Echos so that you can detect the issue?

Or are you suggesting that once BFD flaps we will start sending Echoes
overloaded with debug information to detect the issue?

I'd like to understand this before the mailing list sees a barrage of
emails. Alternatively, we can also take it offline and only report the
summary of our discussion to the list.

Cheers, Manav