IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Correcting BFD Echo model

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 18:50 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 31824129458; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 dEzeDmc7bgP5; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22a.google.com (mail-ot0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22a]) (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 E0CF812773A; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id i1so7637643ota.3; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FEHuebu/n292pjV4HRvXT1J1Ktt3sZvFbz5+yb/pG7c=; b=uZSVAW9abDrOYohsBlzEKNmk2gOHj6AJfPA4eJrymLE4R6sx5CrAtHrk5RJu+ImnoF PIemocConHamy1qdXCXmYw/bH30su9HJmAfMgh8535OWZallQjegROw7n11xYl7SPDT/ EBvclfxUzDbeQhOdaxt6cWJOHj7V3eftBgP9J+hw4Hqvs95ReY7f5odxXvYFSxJ8a9C9 QMGJFsRd+nGVsKZEkk8BjERgZs/o5AmUGXV3BIhtdalmeH4QNqQgPjwY0JXCPTjBGY0j Y1N9v5aNiHqkcJLiFkAzlqYoiqCknC1buWyhSDcnh3xqguAa+EdZw2nG8xFkV0Jwr94b Sn+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FEHuebu/n292pjV4HRvXT1J1Ktt3sZvFbz5+yb/pG7c=; b=HM7pFTem9Y8oDQuHZf13JJs2urVzeyORjyT/Cg3hqqurms3wvJx9X5dK3M1QaQBX/P oO8yiGgCX3mveNK/UUpxQpNwVOTrk4rgwYO3Q1r7JsMOqTWdhqAtKz+rOYfHGpi8UBpb F+krgycmN57fd/gHUXIlUZ4jpVf+b9WCF6ToGVbdoxVLe3xqjgPsaGaYiDZ+e/0rHKHt pDUFzF2c736Cu18oQ5JAMKyx45hFTkfgeE+hKH9/heXNf06UVlXfLInz7tQoACqOfqwB cKNLYVN06eZYuZrSfnPyG1E3NjIg5pzHwEv2ITnwgshuTSE4K3qYpnWtvSnxWvlcSAS4 kCxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3GBc1PwtyJFFrUXR2V2/eRWoiXjeQdQuYzyQk5cnAoh5olrur5ZZg5HtReSXv06VBO0oKUebV5Hk/04g==
X-Received: by 10.157.82.22 with SMTP id e22mr5809185oth.76.1490381405180; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170324154640.GO27015@pfrc.org>
References: <CA+RyBmWcU79iCBYM_bi__Ce1RpWwNn_jZCkPHv3Sc+qtybt_pg@mail.gmail.com> <D4D8BE31.25AE5C%rrahman@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWyQZs5B3LG8x=ZoVXTkiHhGPzbZwRX70jCyT_MpQwzCA@mail.gmail.com> <E308FD25-A695-498C-8E34-756250776CE4@gmail.com> <CA+RyBmW=t0DH5H_UVau8t5rS_1A8Qpsh478ayVUN=Se6qqKHyg@mail.gmail.com> <D4D9967A.25B679%rrahman@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmV9QiGGCgxxEHmC8GjnecHksjfZgVO3NJ5q2aLSSrZMvA@mail.gmail.com> <20170324154640.GO27015@pfrc.org>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:50:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUE3g1gNTtf30Wr7hvgMhahnuCznt7LY77kLGSXNYQ=Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Correcting BFD Echo model
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf. org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043546d83c5c11054b7e76d7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/pmmBzph1JwP49XzXnP4e7f_LN2o>
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: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:50:08 -0000

Hi Jeff,
I'll be glad to put couple slides to help jumstart the discussion on BFD
Echo.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

> [continuing the top-posting heresy to preserve context]
>
> Greg,
>
> Our schedule is relatively open right now, and this matter is esoteric
> enough that it probably warrants a slide for the majority of the Working
> Group to follow this issue.  Would you prepare a slide or two to use as a
> discussion point?
>
> I'll also use this opportunity to point out that in S-BFD scenarios, we
> have
> somewhat similar ambiguities since it's an on-demand service.
>
> -- Jeff
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:31:01AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > Hi Reshad,
> > thank you for providing the context to BFD Echo TX. Indeed, I'm familiar
> > with implementations that use BFD Echo as Echo request/reply and thus Tx
> > would be in RPC, not in configuration. I think that it would be good to
> > discuss this in Chicago unless we hear comments from others on the list.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <
> rrahman@cisco.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > draft-zheng-mpls-ls-ping-yang-cfg defines transmit interval in RPC
> > > because all ping operations are done via RPC.  I do not consider BFD
> echo
> > > to be “on demand” like LSP Ping (caveat: this is possibly due to the
> BFD
> > > configuration/implementation I am most familiar with).
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email