From nobody Tue Mar 28 19:20:02 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A58CC152564; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:20:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K5KZGjjVNTGk; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw1-x1133.google.com (mail-yw1-x1133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50901C1524D3; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x1133.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-53d277c1834so267441097b3.10; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680056399; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=g0ETh2yWxF0moolF09wJtOZ5hfkpIt4oFzZdLvdN4i0=; b=jsaeHk4m/TwdzotFWVWCSAJIR6+AjUUoIeP0dkNAtIQhpKaeR7B+rjmIpX9gzHLEum DF/IpLPRYx/QZgR7b8TQhapX30bY/eaYz9emdOAshEyQLO0QWGiGRRqaN8v2694k9I3M THS5D8XSsSIvHH+lXPTp7ea8gcZphztUVWAM+usuLRpPHncL5mvP358AmDmAsw7lyDmt von/X8/yB+ufTDzpzRz1VLnEh1ckQ/hYU+2FxSZd5s/peRV+X2JTkmHuI3KphCy3IYW5 75onGXP2gRAI4VEVoJZs249MYf9y329PJa5Hbysm7qWM1AdmbEua0Sn8SmdhFUuTPcev jGHA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680056399; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=g0ETh2yWxF0moolF09wJtOZ5hfkpIt4oFzZdLvdN4i0=; b=mdv+bX5ZRi4Z6rKE+7mBTDbRIcQZiUTLiZHhxN2UTW01L/7ykNfeRXJzmcoIvBpsIb SgvKjmoVYnn2c2plG+pIpUw04CybbBww/Lb++2C3DHdZBl+lCvT1Kx8nLrwiiW0+qb9s jaZdKKQY6kHtqz3RLWTmcItufSsqiqfXa/oAIuBtE+PVkT3tjPFwO1RVVIBrwEodX5tu fpgCkzZqiM3PXxWk3RqoWhEPyx1GpdhCN54ifuGgLMWbseozLr6khwYl0DS+NpAehO6u 4ZVEYfDOK4ecJZ0rl9oXnwyFt6iFX5Igvk7tz/o8tofm6OyBYyQteC5jSOfAgiZ6FSvm T7kw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9enrAFAW58QPL5qdMMopJr/sA7ocAvRQJowhEgpsl/l8xAx5FfL 8iu+eSCD2Zbk9qYUW9wUGjBPz+cdj5GHUOfzy0g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YbTo5AKGtnLGAmpWmnRC33306TWDP3xfNgLQHvSlWaPEgBTWITnxE9TF7Kh8xlLwrveMm6fa/CZPxNIWCod94= X-Received: by 2002:a81:ae23:0:b0:53c:6fda:835f with SMTP id m35-20020a81ae23000000b0053c6fda835fmr8357640ywh.0.1680056398789; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:19:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <167990761218.28475.14370047592920159610@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:19:47 +0900 Message-ID: To: Ketan Talaulikar Cc: spring , spring-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000da422005f8009cc5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [spring] Pending work items on draft-ietf-spring-bfd X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 02:20:01 -0000 --000000000000da422005f8009cc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ketan, thank you for sharing your comments about the state of draft-ietf-spring-bfd. Please find my notes in-line below under the GIM>> tag. Regards, Greg On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:11=E2=80=AFAM Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > Hi Greg/Authors, > > I believe this draft still needs work before it is ready for WGLC. > > Specifically, it does not cover the use of S-BFD for the monitoring of SR > Policies and AFAIK this is the more widely used than the mechanism > specified in the draft currently (i.e. than the bootstrap via LSP Ping to > setup a "normal" BFD session). > GIM>> Can you clarify how BFD or S-BFD can monitor an SR Policy? As defined in RFC 5880, the scope of BFD is: a protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. At the same time, I believe that an SR policy can be monitored using LSP Ping with the corresponding Target FEC. > > I am not saying that the mechanism in the draft cannot be used, but > progressing this document toward publication without reflecting the other > alternate mechanism that IMO is far more widely implemented and > deployed will provide a somewhat misleading picture. > > My request to the authors is to consider inclusion of text from > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy/ in this > WG document. We can discuss f2f during this week if you agree. > GIM>> Thank you for your suggestion. Let us discuss the applicability of a BFD-based mechanism in monitoring an SR policy. > > I would like us to seek inputs from implementers and operators on which o= f > these two mechanisms they prefer/use. Including this in the document woul= d > also be helpful. > GIM>> I wholeheartedly agree and welcome anyone to share their experiences of monitoring SR policies with MPLS OAM tools. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:04=E2=80=AFPM Greg Mirsky wrote: > >> Refresh and to update author's contact information. >> >> Dear All, >> the draft is stable and the authors believe it is ready for the WG LC. W= e >> appreciate the WG Chairs' consideration for starting the WG LC. >> >> Regards, >> Greg (on behalf of the authors) >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: >> Date: Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:00=E2=80=AFPM >> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt >> To: Mach Chen (Guoyi) , Greg Mirsky < >> gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Ilya Varlashkin , Jeff Tantsura = < >> jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Jiang Wenying >> >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-ietf-spring-bfd >> Revision: 06 >> Title: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment >> Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane >> Document date: 2023-03-27 >> Group: spring >> Pages: 14 >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt >> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/ >> Html: >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.html >> Htmlized: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-bfd >> Diff: >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-spring-bfd-06 >> >> Abstract: >> Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source >> routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching >> (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is >> encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is encoded >> as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is >> expected to monitor any existing path between systems. This document >> defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD >> session, control an SR Policy in the reverse direction of the SR-MPLS >> tunnel, and applicability of BFD Demand mode in the SR-MPLS domain. >> Also, the document describes the use of BFD Echo with BFD Control >> packet payload. >> >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> > --000000000000da422005f8009cc5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ketan,
thank you = for sharing your comments about the state of draft-ietf-spring-bfd. Please = find my notes in-line below under the GIM>> tag.

=
Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:11=E2=80=AFAM = Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@g= mail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg/Authors,

I b= elieve this draft still needs work before it is ready for WGLC.
<= br>
Specifically, it does not cover the use of S-BFD for the moni= toring of SR Policies and AFAIK this is the more widely used than the mecha= nism specified in the draft currently (i.e. than the bootstrap via LSP Ping= to setup a "normal" BFD session).
G= IM>> Can you clarify how BFD or S-BFD can monitor an SR Policy? As de= fined in RFC 5880, the scope of BFD is:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a protocol intended to detect faults in the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0bidirectional pat= h between two forwarding engines, including
=C2=A0 =C2=A0interfaces, data link(s), and to the ex= tent possible the forwarding
=C2=A0 =C2=A0engines themselves, with potentially very low latency.= =C2=A0
At the same time, I believe that an SR= policy can be monitored using LSP Ping with the corresponding Target FEC.<= br>

I am not saying = that the mechanism in the draft cannot be used, but progressing this docume= nt toward publication without reflecting the other alternate mechanism that= IMO is far more widely implemented and deployed=C2=A0will provide a somewh= at misleading picture.

My request to the authors i= s to consider inclusion of text from https://datatracke= r.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy/ in this WG document. We = can discuss f2f during this week if you agree.
=
GIM>> Thank you for your suggestion. Let us discuss the applicab= ility of a BFD-based mechanism in monitoring an SR policy.=C2=A0

I would like us to seek inputs from implementers and= operators on which of these two mechanisms they prefer/use. Including this= in the document would also be helpful.
= GIM>> I wholeheartedly agree and welcome anyone to share their experi= ences of monitoring SR policies with MPLS OAM tools.=C2=A0

Thanks,
Ketan

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:04=E2=80=AFPM Greg Mirsky= <gregimirsky= @gmail.com> wrote:
Refresh and to update author's contact info= rmation.

Dear All,
the draft is stable and the= authors believe it is ready for the WG LC. We appreciate the WG Chairs'= ; consideration for starting the WG LC.

Regards,
Greg (on behalf of the authors)

=
---------- Forwarded message --------= -
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, = Mar 27, 2023 at 6:00=E2=80=AFPM
Subject: New Version Notification for dr= aft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt
To: Mach Chen (Guoyi) <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Greg M= irsky <gregim= irsky@gmail.com>, Ilya Varlashkin <imv@google.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Jiang Wenying <jiangwenying@chinamobile.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt
has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-ietf-spring-bfd
Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A006
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection= (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
Document date:=C2=A0 2023-03-27
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 spring
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 14
URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt
Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http= s://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/
Html:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.html Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https= ://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-bfd
Diff:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-spring= -bfd-06

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of so= urce
=C2=A0 =C2=A0routing.=C2=A0 It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label S= witching
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(MPLS) network without any change to the data plane.=C2=A0 A s= egment is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is e= ncoded
=C2=A0 =C2=A0as a stack of labels.=C2=A0 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection= (BFD) is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0expected to monitor any existing path between systems.=C2=A0 T= his document
=C2=A0 =C2=A0defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0session, control an SR Policy in the reverse direction of the = SR-MPLS
=C2=A0 =C2=A0tunnel, and applicability of BFD Demand mode in the SR-MPLS do= main.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Also, the document describes the use of BFD Echo with BFD Cont= rol
=C2=A0 =C2=A0packet payload.




The IETF Secretariat


_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--000000000000da422005f8009cc5--