Hi Muthu,
The primary reason for my question on encapsulations is because RFC 4379 has
the foll. as one of the reasons for using the destination address in 127/8
range for IPv4 (0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6) for diagnostic packets
sent over MPLS LSP:
1. Although the LSP in question may be broken in unknown ways, the
likelihood of a diagnostic packet being delivered to a user of an
MPLS service MUST be held to an absolute minimum.
Since multihop BFD uses a routable destination address, wondering whether there
would be any issues if multihop BFD packets are sent over the RLFA backup path
without following RFC 5884 encapsulation..
<Nagendra> In end-to-end LSP scenarios, RFC5884 is applicable that suggests to
use 127/8 or ::FFFF:7F00/104 address. I am not aware of any IP environment with
LSP rLFA. Theoretically I think it wont/shouldn’t change the encapsulation but
simply push the rLFA stack.
Regards,
Nagendra
From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
<muthu.a...@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:02 AM
To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com>
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup?
Hi Stephane,
Thanks for your response. Please see inline..
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 3:27 PM
<stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I think that the fact that “control” packets can benefit of FRR is really
implementation dependent. It is also linked to the place where BFD packets are
created (RP or LC).
From a theoretical point of view, nothing prevents FRR to be used as for any
packet generated by the router itself.
Do we know of any implementation that provides RLFA FRR protection to multihop
BFD packets?
Regarding the encapsulation, if your BFD client is using RFC5883, this will not
change during FRR, the FRR will just push labels on top independently.
The primary reason for my question on encapsulations is because RFC 4379 has
the foll. as one of the reasons for using the destination address in 127/8
range for IPv4 (0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6) for diagnostic packets
sent over MPLS LSP:
1. Although the LSP in question may be broken in unknown ways, the
likelihood of a diagnostic packet being delivered to a user of an
MPLS service MUST be held to an absolute minimum.
Since multihop BFD uses a routable destination address, wondering whether there
would be any issues if multihop BFD packets are sent over the RLFA backup path
without following RFC 5884 encapsulation..
Regards,
Muthu
Again, the possibility to get FRR is really implementation dependent, as the
forwarding decision of the BFD packet may not be taken by the network processor
of the LC.
Brgds,
From: Rtg-bfd
[mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of
Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 10:16
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup?
Hi All,
Multihop BFD (RFC 5883) packets are sent over UDP/IP. The encapsulation used is
identical to single hop BFD (RFC 5881) except that the UDP destination port is
set to 4784.
Now, suppose on the ingress node there is no IP/LFA backup path for the
destination address tracked by multihop BFD, but there exists an an RLFA backup
path to that destination. In this case, is multihop BFD expected to be
protected using the RLFA backup path i.e should multihop BFD packets be sent
over the RLFA backup path if the primary path goes down?
If multihop BFD packets are to be sent over the RLFA backup path, what
encapsulation should the ingress use? The encapsulation specified in RFC 5883
or the encapsulation specified in RFC 5884 (MPLS BFD)?
Please let me know you opinion.
Regards,
Muthu
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
