IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [trill] WG LC on draft-ietf-p2mp-bfd-04.txt - 2/7/2016 to 2/21/2016 - Second WG LC (3/7 to 3/20)

"Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 607BA1295F1 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:56:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ppXwPOzG2DAZ for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B31FA1295E2 for <trill@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:56:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DCI02273; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 06:56:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.213) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 06:54:37 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.77]) by DGGEMM405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.213]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:54:30 +0800
From: "Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
To: "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RE: [trill] WG LC on draft-ietf-p2mp-bfd-04.txt - 2/7/2016 to 2/21/2016 - Second WG LC (3/7 to 3/20)
Thread-Index: AdKXD6tHpmqiZjuzQcWYIOGp+n6/mw==
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 06:54:30 +0000
Message-ID: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2ECC00D3@DGGEMM506-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.180.83]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2ECC00D3DGGEMM506MBSchina_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.58BE599C.0046, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.77, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 33fb624740b6cc6ce5429e749551454b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/Ttl6MolGUYc83W5LgWWdkLQwJQE>
Subject: Re: [trill] WG LC on draft-ietf-p2mp-bfd-04.txt - 2/7/2016 to 2/21/2016 - Second WG LC (3/7 to 3/20)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 06:56:32 -0000

The mBFD supports the fast detection of faults of a distribution trees so I believe it aids the deployment of TRILL. The bootstrapping add-on looks fine.

Support for its publication.

Thanks,
Remy

From: trill [mailto:trill-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 12:25 PM
To: trill@ietf.org<mailto:trill@ietf.org>
Cc: trill-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:trill-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [trill] WG LC on draft-ietf-p2mp-bfd-04.txt - 2/7/2016 to 2/21/2016 - Second WG LC (3/7 to 3/20)

We did not receive any comments on the WGLC for draft-ietf-p2mp-bfd-04.txt (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07692.html).  Perhaps this was because I started the WG LC during Chinese new year.   We will try a second WG LC before declaring "no support for this draft"

In your comments please consider,

1)      Does the support of multi-point BFD aid deployments?
2)      Are the suggested additions to RFC7177 bootstrapping sufficient for this technology?
3)      Do you feel this technology is ready for standardization?

Sue Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email