Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup?
Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Thu, 17 January 2019 09:16 UTC
Return-Path: <muthu.arul@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 AC6E812F1AC for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:16:19 -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, 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 lAGqdh0EGCzH for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (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 0840D126DBF for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id y14so7173523lfg.13 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:16:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Rc3ItGlAdq60NFlCtTLgbHiyZlqEMIxXIQaJsid6DmI=; b=I0ZRi5gc00We/0bIMbUSoOBX3mdstNGeDADeG50gtSkn1HdmrRXKBE838VyazjB3sY zbrQFIZj444YuKq9oZxONKeWDvo7FkWUsw8Lioi8NEh+IEi1C1ZtqBwGYcsGN/W6AyFn f/Yd/LkYm7UyKQ97QZzzxLGCp18IH41aYjy0eg9b8em6qxOCv6qOlJCxqHhcdf5gi1fa pBQCPSOFmh7ZGJ1XPXfecOf0+meBz7O2nGY+um+JFnF5yb5POpHctaqyjQDdFztolUL2 kyyFs7hLDnFZYyZZahbm1EIaDdrL/EmBIPXJBMDZZmdIiDPoQ9vQdeO561Dx7T/S2PlV DefQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Rc3ItGlAdq60NFlCtTLgbHiyZlqEMIxXIQaJsid6DmI=; b=L7wQsE4bbHNlMqkFoHO9Z/Yxg7rDQrpo7afcBYCzZtg7oLPTn5HUG4r6vDgTkJkFUy BlAUhcLdJiDBiFdpUNLtcE4JkD3OVujQaoHaDKexAHgjWphik3V/y3+tK58M0KQWwHGX hlbDAI+QT6oMOZJ7JToEWOh5fjS1oo5sSPIhvduYxGbIzAJgwWukKzQePVGWwTW7creq nbcQdeDBBlCd4zDQY8sxwGeOwvpeu19vtsEw0hbjZYqgkY8ONBCtKN+8zHYAUbQrsoxA qvW9kk33CDivrBwbXV1HXngmAv8iOKgYFeGkJU/h3dHJ7HSFx4K6oxkOMHrjMSo9vLMA adYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdFpfOiP29sjUDdznlPjL1KTbOE0AukFQjQsRZTYjfapQn+NkDx LMSy74RN7STfMBsjqUpeUMdzsWT8jAMNpRkeNxfMXjsT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6xLsxCc0gPoJQf1T1mjiATM1LsJPSz0WNfSxaRI8IQKhQitKEbIKplNDMfrDNnJi2Cy5FPK5APjM+wgJEy2us=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:1994:: with SMTP id 142mr10032275lfz.134.1547716575892; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:16:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:46:04 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8xNcx9AmS-kx4nM1YXnqk8+PDPrPrdBhMs4jtYVegoz8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup?
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b81a41057fa3d8d7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/qbz4-97w98bM3z76jKsd8pNSuM0>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:16:20 -0000
Hi All, Multihop BFD (RFC 5883) packets are sent over UDP/IP. The encapsulation used is identical to single hop BFD (RFC 5881) except that the UDP destination port is set to 4784. Now, suppose on the ingress node there is no IP/LFA backup path for the destination address tracked by multihop BFD, but there exists an an RLFA backup path to that destination. In this case, is multihop BFD expected to be protected using the RLFA backup path i.e should multihop BFD packets be sent over the RLFA backup path if the primary path goes down? If multihop BFD packets are to be sent over the RLFA backup path, what encapsulation should the ingress use? The encapsulation specified in RFC 5883 or the encapsulation specified in RFC 5884 (MPLS BFD)? Please let me know you opinion. Regards, Muthu
- Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup? Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- RE: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA back… stephane.litkowski
- Re: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA back… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- RE: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA back… Alexander Vainshtein
- RE: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA back… Alexander Vainshtein
- RE: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA back… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA back… Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)
- RE: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA back… stephane.litkowski
- Re: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA back… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal