Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

Jeffrey Haas <> Wed, 21 November 2018 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BB712D7F8 for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:13:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GyIzIw9Rnhte for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B7A12D4E9 for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D834A1E4FB; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:12:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:12:31 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:13:18 -0000


On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 01:58:25PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
> Hi authors.,
> This document has passed adoption as a BFD WG document.
> Please resubmit the doc as draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets. Please also note that while there was strong support for adopting the document, the following points/questions were raised and should be discussed further within the WG as the document progresses:
>   1.  Is there necessity to send all packets as large packets or alternatively can that be done periodically?
>   2.  Authors should consider adding some text wrt use of BFD echo in the document

The intent is to do the draft-ietf-bfd republish next week and include text
to address these.

> Also, there was a suggestion made to use BFD for PMTUD (as opposed to the BFD session failing when expected MTU isn’t met). My take on this is that it falls out of our charter but the PMTUD use-case should be considered if/when we recharter, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.

We believe that this is currently out of scope for the work.  However, as I
have discussed with Albert, it's not unusual for BFD features to be used in
unexpected ways.  If there continues to be interest in discussing this, it
might be worth adding an appendix covering this use case.

-- Jeff (speaking as an individual contributor)