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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Thu, 25 October 2018 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0758130DFB for <>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.97
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t6Cb6LxIc3Qh for <>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF10812D4E9 for <>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=7588; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540502298; x=1541711898; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=QnkI9/lWTDFasK612B1GSo/NhAKDg8UabB+scjggSKo=; b=H/k6NIqtVrI9XV152xFmuBW2Ulo8Gh4+KVnoqf25/bLau7PpS4T1VlF5 +rooZg2s1kexrFfNxGkIRyzt3NPkfa8xh9SAcJnAJ5o37Gx+x7s2R0whk xFkxd6JCH6kkCP86IJw0ta1t6jWNDexbOXF0x9Cro646KFtSlWdI9w6Nq E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,425,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="191072901"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Oct 2018 21:18:17 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9PLIHqs017098 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:18:17 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:18:16 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:18:16 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Jeff Haas <>
CC: Albert Fu <>, "" <>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
Subject: Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets
Thread-Topic: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets
Thread-Index: AQHUaudK2obCS5tWFUCJRL2ls+mZdKUtBbeAgANWeoCAAGGKgA==
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:18:16 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <5BCF41E0027F048C00390652_0_50208@msllnjpmsgsv06> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:18:21 -0000

Hi Jeff, 

Although technically BFD doesn’t seem like the right hammer, I can see the advantages of using it in specific use cases since all the notification machinery is already in place. See one inline. 

> On Oct 25, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Jeffrey Haas <> wrote:
> Note that I'm choosing this message out of a mixed thread to give a reply.
> So, not all of this is targeted as a response to you, Acee.
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 04:30:52PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Hi Albert, Les,
>> I tend to agree with Les that BFD doesn’t seem like the right protocol for this. Note that if you use OSPF as your IGP and flap the interface when the MTU changes, you’ll detect MTU mismatches immediately due to OSPF’s DB exchange MTU negotiation. Granted, control plane detection won’t detect data plane bugs resulting in MTU fluctuations but I don’t see this as a frequent event.
> Commenting specifically on the OSPF case, when you have such misconfigured
> MTUs, this manifests as weird protocol hiccups.  You don't so much detect
> that there's an MTU issue - you just see OSPF failing to make progress.

However, when implementations start supporting ietf-ospf.yang, there’ll be an if-config-err notification specifically indicating an MTU-mismatch. ;^) 


> Commenting on the general "well, this other protocol has MTU features",
> one of the meta issues is there's no guarantee that a given protocol may be
> running over a given link.  Several of the scenarios Albert writes about the
> links may only be running BGP as a control plane protocol.  
> Should BFD be *the* protocol for this?  Possibly not.  What else instead?  A
> specific MTU probing protocol?  What does it look like?  My suspicion is
> that such a thing would have a large overlap with BFD state machinery.
> Which brings up the question of speed:
>> From: At: 10/23/18 10:45:02
>> Please understand that I fully agree with the importance of being able to detect/report MTU issues. In my own experience this can be a difficult problem to diagnose. You do not have to convince me that some improvement in detection/reporting is needed. The question really is whether using BFD is the best option.
>> Could you respond to my original questions – particularly why sub-second detection of this issue is a requirement?
> Sub-second detection of MTU is not specifically the requirement - at least
> in Albert's use case.  I'll let others write about their own requirements.
> The interesting question arises that if BFD is where we're choosing our MTU
> probing, what's the intersection between BFD timeliness requirements with
> its usual shorter packets vs. MTU probing?  
> Note this is particularly important for standard single-hop BFD since you
> only ever have a *single* session between a given set of endpoints.
>> It has been stated that there is a need for sub-second detection of this
>> condition – but I really question that requirement.
>> What I would expect is that MTU changes only occur as a result of some
>> maintenance operation (configuration change, link addition/bringup,
>> insertion of a new box in the physical path etc.).
> Unfortunately, that's not always the case.
> An example (not necessarily Albert's) of where this is problematic is in the
> case of leased circuits that are partially created using some sort of
> mechanism such as L2VPNs.  While it may appear to the customer that the
> circuit is a leased line of a given set of properties, it may be delivered
> through the provider network in a packet-switched environment.  This means
> that MTU issues through the provider network, perhaps the result of a
> topology change, may result in issues.  
> So, this work - and then stop working.
>> The idea of using a
>> mechanism which is specifically tailored for sub-second detection to
>> monitor something that is only going to change occasionally seems
>> inappropriate.
> For Albert's specific use case, I think there's some level of tolerance for
> detection timing for a down link vs. bad MTU detection.  However, I don't
> think we pretend to speak for all possible users of such a mechanism.  And
> thus, this discussion. :-)
>> It makes me think that other mechanisms (some form of OAM,
>> enhancements to routing protocols to do what IS-IS already does •) could
>> be more appropriate and would still meet the operational requirements.
> As noted above, I'm not sure layering this onto a full control plane
> protocol as the primary mechanism is the best idea.  (You want MTU
> detection?  You have to build a dummy IS-IS session?  Ugh.)
> Certainly documenting existing mechanisms and when they can deal with the
> use case is worth noting - perhaps even in the BFD Large draft itself.
> Please feel free to suggest text.
> But we have other situations where an IGP-like MTU mechanism won't help.
> Two simple examples being BGP and static routes.
> Also, certainly some form of lower layer mechanism could be used,if
> applicable.  Given that one form of known issue is when a LAG is built from
> component elements where a given element may have smaller MTU than their
> siblings, it'd be nice if this was solved in something like LACP as well.
> (And we note that BFD for LAG exists, and is one of the possible
> applications for BFD-large as well.)
> -- Jeff