IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-mirsky-spring-bfd instate "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

liu.aihua@zte.com.cn Tue, 15 September 2020 06:02 UTC

Return-Path: <liu.aihua@zte.com.cn>
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 AB6EB3A0E9B; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 23:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JO-xfXnCiTTS; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 23:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E4B23A0E8F; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 23:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id EED9F7B2FC3DE4DF9C61; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:02:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id BEF00550F1B9721245FB; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:02:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kjyxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.30.12.204]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 08F61jwL013666; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:02:19 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from liu.aihua@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (kjyxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid13; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:02:19 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:02:19 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b065f6058eb35dffcbd
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202009151402193328678@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXQ7ov9KV4Myt_s0vVzVQwNPR0ixdcc+wKXT3nnR39gnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 159958851173.6820.10542475922462723282@ietfa.amsl.com, CA+RyBmXQ7ov9KV4Myt_s0vVzVQwNPR0ixdcc+wKXT3nnR39gnQ@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.aihua@zte.com.cn
To: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Cc: ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, draft-mirsky-spring-bfd@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 08F61jwL013666
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/sKOEOnfNnx9ZEOOPQR5LTFDjPzA>
Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-mirsky-spring-bfd instate "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 06:02:40 -0000

I support WG adoption this draft since it enables the use of BFD Demand mode that reduces amount of BFD control messages received by the ingress BFD system.






Regards,


Aihua







原始邮件



发件人：GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
收件人：IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>;
抄送人：spring <spring@ietf.org>;spring-chairs@ietf.org <spring-chairs@ietf.org>;draft-mirsky-spring-bfd@ietf.org <draft-mirsky-spring-bfd@ietf.org>;
日 期 ：2020年09月15日 05:18
主 题 ：Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-mirsky-spring-bfd instate "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"


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


Dear All,I support the adoption of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd by the SPRING WG for the following reasons:
optional control of the reverse path of the BFD session in SR-MPLS environment;

optional reduction of OAM data exchanged between BFD systems by using the BFD in Demand mode over an SR-MPLS tunnel;

ability to monitor p2mp SR policies.

I want to highlight the third point. BFD (based on RFC 5880) has solutions for lightweight mechanisms to detect defects in a p2mp tunnel. The solution defined in RFC 8562 allows egress BFD nodes to monitor the state of the head-end and related part of the multicast distribution tree. In some scenarios, it is desirable for the head-end to be able to know the state of an egress node and egress's view of the distribution tree. Three options listed in RFC 8563:
head notifications with multicast polling

head notifications with composite polling

unsolicited notifications

The two first options described in RFC 8563 in detail while the third is very sketchy. This is the option discussed in the draft, pointing to the solution defined in draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd. 

Always welcome your questions.

Regards,
Greg




On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:08 AM IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org> wrote:


The SPRING WG has placed draft-mirsky-spring-bfd in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Joel Halpern)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd/

Comment:
The authors have requested (quite some time ago) WG adoption for this
document.  Looking at the archive, there was anot a lot of discussion, and
some concerns.  Rather than try to infer the current state from the old
discussions, the WG Chairs have decided to issue a WG call for adoption.  If
you support this becoming a WG document, please explain on the list.  If you
oppose this becoming a WG document, please explain on the list.  Silence does
not mean consent.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email