IETF Logo Mail Archive

答复: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Thu, 16 July 2015 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
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 A7AF71B2C53 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 mJCiN7XnD9Ol for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D151B2C35 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 6D85BC38E5967; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:08:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id t6G17ub6024946; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:56 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <D3EFEEFF-FADE-4372-ACCE-E02D0B50C038@yahoo.com>
To: "S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com>
Subject: 答复: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OFC99027F3.704D76AA-ON48257E84.0004B7A5-48257E84.00063748@zte.com.cn>
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:50 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2015-07-16 09:07:56, Serialize complete at 2015-07-16 09:07:56
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0006374548257E84_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn t6G17ub6024946
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/sVeqc3oajBlQ34Hhl_mSX16Zduo>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:39:31 -0700
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: <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, 16 Jul 2015 01:08:16 -0000

Hi Shahram

Different ingress LSR allocate LD independently, and always automatically. 
It is not a static configuration.


Thanks
Deccan





"S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com> 
2015-07-15 下午 10:42

收件人
"peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
抄送
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
主题
Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02






Hi

Why can't the ingress allocate different LD to each of those BFD sessions?

Regards,
Shahram


On Jul 15, 2015, at 7:30 AM, "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <
peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn> wrote:


hi authors 

It is neccessary to address the case that different ingress LSR establish 
BFD session with the same egress LSR, with same FEC, same local 
descriminator. 
I think it is very useful to introduce a BFD Initiator TLV to LSP ping 
echo request message, to distinguish different ingress LSR. So that 
ingress allocate LD based on tuple <FEC, LSP> as defined in this draft, 
but egress allocate LD based on tuple <Initiator, FEC, RD>. 

thanks 
deccan 


--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail 
(and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential 
and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not 
an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other 
dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. 
If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us 
immediately.





--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail 
(and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential 
and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not 
an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other 
dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. 
If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us 
immediately.




--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email