IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <mmudigon@cisco.com> Thu, 16 July 2015 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mmudigon@cisco.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 20B501B31A4 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 Sf2dCL_c60yw for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 23:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43F801B3195 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 23:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7148; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1437027373; x=1438236973; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=MBq+uTNNVZAvhUXtGrqdOgyjbS5Jn53h897RdaSj/GU=; b=Cju7fk49aJSOuXtcp8o7CscdOS2einlLQzsH66Tk0kY0WhvVGqdNKwj8 legH4MoycKmW5kYRo4wh9I1SdzE/E9OhgA7wER6H5JMZx1KhFz41a026h 1/bL21Z/prZmspEiATj0Mzid8PKALALjwhxp3sgOJK/0DCiBeICJu0kJb I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BJAwBKS6dV/4UNJK1agkZNgT0GrAyPLgmHbQKBSTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEEeRACAQgRAwECKAcfExMBCQgCBAENBYgZAxLPRQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLTIJNgWcBASUaEQcCBIQlAQSFXgyBIY0zAQmJZEWBYIFAFYQEi3mHJiaDfG+BDTqBBAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,485,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="169196554"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2015 06:16:12 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6G6GBDY019837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 06:16:11 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.15.132]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:16:11 -0500
From: "MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <mmudigon@cisco.com>
To: "S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com>, "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02
Thread-Topic: issues about draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02
Thread-Index: AQHQvwrFrwuXUKQGrUmeAwwRsv5Y553c7poAgAFhKAA=
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 06:16:10 +0000
Message-ID: <D1CD4981.4517%mmudigon@cisco.com>
References: <OFBF0A0F7B.44E43B3D-ON48257E83.00335600-48257E83.003360F2@zte.com.cn> <D3EFEEFF-FADE-4372-ACCE-E02D0B50C038@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3EFEEFF-FADE-4372-ACCE-E02D0B50C038@yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.143.25.169]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1CD49814517mmudigonciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/tumG10zYfNDPnoV5EToVQ7hdJzg>
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 06:16:14 -0000

Hi,

I think the question is 2 different ingress LSRs using the same FEC, LSP, Discriminator values. Discriminator values can be the same for 2 different ingress LSRs and if the other values are same we can always use the Source address to differentiate. Am I missing something?

Regards
Mallik

From: "S. Davari" <davarish@yahoo.com<mailto:davarish@yahoo.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 20:12
To: "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>>
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Subject: 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<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto: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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email