Schwarz,
Just curious to know why do you have this use case? I mean why not use
CFM itself?
Thanks
Santosh P K
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 2:17 PM Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <
albrecht.schw...@etas.com> wrote:
> Thanks Sasha, Jeff & Stewart for your reply!
>
> OK, understood, more a technology ownership question (IEEE 802 vs IETF)
> than a technical issue.
> Running BFD directly over Ethernet would (at least) require to assign an
> Ethertype codepoint (
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xml )
> for BFD.
>
> But BFD-over-Ethernet seems to be then in direct competition with the IEEE
> 802.1ag defined OAM capabilities (guess the Connectivity Fault Management
> protocols), i.e., the IEEE Continuity Check protocol.
> My rough understanding.
>
> Thanks again!
> Albrecht
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>
> Sent: 07 June 2019 13:56
> To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>; Schwarz
> Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <albrecht.schw...@etas.com>; Rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
>
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 12:20:30PM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > However if you really want BFD, you only need a lightweight IP
> > implementation to carry it.
>
> During the work for BFD for LAG, IETF already went a bit too close to
> stepping into IEEE territory. Raw BFD over Ethernet would not be received
> very well by that organization, I think. (Even if it'd be trivial to
> specify.)
>
> -- Jeff
>
>
