Re: A question about RFC5884

Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ashesh@outlook.com> Sun, 16 July 2017 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mishra.ashesh@outlook.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 86EE712706D for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 07:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.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 8jSApgusPjpM for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 07:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092000082.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.0.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D867B126D73 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 07:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=HGOKJUR78Lbd4UFsDvFpb1UEv6CBHi72bVCC7wX0Xec=; b=fgpaUQcXhK+YxrbhKckTEH68MGpdWyvHCUUFANoNgpiwm4Bc50FLpQkOkiJ8c/4HT31ysQ+y4B9KR6fWxtkxibVfTocWCgsUe5ByCZMQ+aUTWJ3bPzCsM4Z4/aaoZaEet37BXHOvfl5Z2VzAxSAKREp8ppPTesvT0qsFBNji1yWI9NDT1akLsIOpvO5gvt5zcwLFBB44CvOD5GaKlQuMr2Bw/SIhjHOqBzgXNlihxefM0JgfY+/mOEuMJBp6qpBpal/cQbEATUXvWf+KUowwYmqcdB/MAYjSG+65ZbkV0928wfmytvPJEUEtB9sS68JR7qNovIxr9CSWaQeLZ4BHqQ==
Received: from BN3NAM01FT045.eop-nam01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.66.51) by BN3NAM01HT023.eop-nam01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.66.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.1240.9; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:25:38 +0000
Received: from MWHPR01MB2768.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.152.66.54) by BN3NAM01FT045.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.66.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1240.9 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:25:38 +0000
Received: from MWHPR01MB2768.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.172.165.146]) by MWHPR01MB2768.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.172.165.146]) with mapi id 15.01.1261.022; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:25:38 +0000
From: Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ashesh@outlook.com>
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
CC: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A question about RFC5884
Thread-Topic: A question about RFC5884
Thread-Index: AdL+O5gXoB9THAjbTKqm/tbSNMtZOwAA8z/L
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:25:38 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR01MB2768DA6F22D6F8CDF11700E8FAA30@MWHPR01MB2768.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE291842ADE@dggeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE291842ADE@dggeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;huawei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=outlook.com;
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:16F250106A5CEC79554C18AAF4EC6BFF4BE250BD9A51E74C883795E2B2DBE4B2; UpperCasedChecksum:F33810A44F86AF8209C80924B76D1D668A490910488E9AD723D98398CDE4C26B; SizeAsReceived:7197; Count:46
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [Hm+IJc2K1WS5lcYcr1+sQpi9ql8Tkd7s]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3NAM01HT023; 7: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
x-incomingheadercount: 46
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3NAM01HT023; H:MWHPR01MB2768.prod.exchangelabs.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bb144f6b-1054-4620-c210-08d4cc5687f1
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(300000503095)(300135400095)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322350)(1603101448)(1601125374)(1701031045)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:BN3NAM01HT023;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN3NAM01HT023:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(236129657087228)(50582790962513)(247924648384137);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(444000031); SRVR:BN3NAM01HT023; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:BN3NAM01HT023;
x-forefront-prvs: 03706074BC
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Jul 2017 14:25:38.5010 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3NAM01HT023
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/x-bM3HNK4T_qbxzVqJdea2nUASo>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:25:41 -0000

That's how I read it ... assuming that proper handling of the LSR echo includes gracefully dropping it on rx. 

Ashesh

On Jul 16, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>; wrote:

Hi BFDers,

We met a multi-vendor interoperate issue recently, it's about whether an Echo reply is necessary.

In Section 6 of RFC5884, 2nd paragraph

"... The egress LSR MAY respond with an LSP Ping Echo
  reply message that carries the local discriminator assigned by it for
  the BFD session."

> From the above text, my understanding is that an Echo reply is optional, the egress LSR can freely to return or not return an Echo reply, and the Ingress LSR should not expect there MUST be an Echo reply, but if there is one, it should handle it properly.

Is my understanding correct? 

Thanks,
Mach