IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net> Mon, 08 December 2014 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <santoshpk@juniper.net>
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 237D71A6F3A for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:07:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 X2Y_yy1s1dto for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0128.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CD571A6F17 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.244.145) by CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.244.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.31.17; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 06:07:19 +0000
Received: from CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.244.145]) by CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.244.145]) with mapi id 15.01.0031.000; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 06:07:19 +0000
From: Santosh P K <santoshpk@juniper.net>
To: Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>, Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>
Subject: RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
Thread-Topic: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
Thread-Index: AQHQCQ6qzE1oSJ0IQ0C/g/DAGkzw7JxyeiWAgAAfxYCAAAeWAIAAjSQAgAD7mQCAAEe3gIAABKUAgAAczuCAAAvZAIAF49GAgANl6hCAAHr8gIAAli8QgAAGoICAAFQ5AIAACCOwgAABWQCAAABdwIAAJGiAgAAOuoCAAAYAAIAAAhWAgAWECgCAAAeFgIAAIe5A
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 06:07:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CO2PR0501MB823962B235ACA590C076236B3640@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
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> <CAG1kdojxdDY0qXPYnZ5K67rizVaD7gHte1MdRA2q==K6SoRVsw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG1kdojxdDY0qXPYnZ5K67rizVaD7gHte1MdRA2q==K6SoRVsw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.19]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR0501MB823;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR0501MB823;
x-forefront-prvs: 041963B986
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(189002)(199003)(377454003)(106116001)(68736005)(105586002)(4396001)(77096005)(122556002)(92566001)(102836002)(15975445007)(19625215002)(86362001)(76576001)(99286002)(16236675004)(87936001)(46102003)(40100003)(54356999)(33656002)(31966008)(19580405001)(76176999)(50986999)(99396003)(2656002)(66066001)(74316001)(64706001)(54206007)(54606007)(21056001)(101416001)(106356001)(20776003)(19580395003)(77156002)(107046002)(120916001)(19300405004)(97736003)(62966003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR0501MB823; H:CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CO2PR0501MB823962B235ACA590C076236B3640CO2PR0501MB823na_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/uENQHU77fp0duCkDKodmMchr9Os
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 06:07:24 -0000

Hello Mac and Manav,
     Are we just talking about singlehop? How about MPLS BFD and multihop where echo does not work?

Thanks
Santosh P K

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Manav Bhatia
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 9:33 AM
To: Marc Binderberger
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email