Reshad, Jeff and Iao Min, Lots of thanks for very useful feedback. I remember the contention around the Destination MAC addresses to be used with micro-BFD in the early days of the draft that eventually has been published as RFC 7130. And I agree with Jeff: Now, with multiple implementations on the table, things have (hopefully) stabilized, and there is a reasonable chance to deprecate unused (if indeed unused) options.
Regards, Sasha From: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 3:50 PM To: Xiao Min <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>; Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Nitsan Dolev <nitsan.do...@rbbn.com>; Shell Nakash <shell.nak...@rbbn.com>; James Lian <james.l...@rbbn.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] A missing read/write attribute in RFC 9314? Xiao Min, Thank you for researching this. That brings the count of implementations that don't support such behavior to at least two. -- Jeff On Oct 19, 2022, at 11:23 PM, <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>> <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>> wrote: Jeff, Sasha, Reshad, et al., Please see inline... Best Regards, Xiao Min Original From: JeffreyHaas <jh...@pfrc.org<mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com<mailto:alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>>; Cc: Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com<mailto:res...@yahoo.com>>;BFD WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>;Nitsan Dolev <nitsan.do...@rbbn.com<mailto:nitsan.do...@rbbn.com>>;Shell Nakash <shell.nak...@rbbn.com<mailto:shell.nak...@rbbn.com>>;James Lian <james.l...@rbbn.com<mailto:james.l...@rbbn.com>>; Date: 2022年10月20日 04:17 Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: A missing read/write attribute in RFC 9314? Sasha, On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 08:07:06PM +0000, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > And I have not encountered implementations by other vendors that support this > option (with or without the knob in question). My guess (FWIW) is that this > would make an implementation much more complicated while the benefits would > be minimal. BFD on LAG was a contentious and fussy bit of RFC work. Much of the earlier headache about whether multicast or unicast MACs were to be involved had to do with chip details. However, I suspect as time has passed and it's become a more common feature across the vendors, things may have stabilized. > So I think that we indeed need a survey you have proposed. I've internally enquired about this at Juniper. A brief survey of some other implementations' manuals doesn't seem to suggest any knob for this behavior. It'd be good to get more formal statement of compliance from these vendors. [XM]>>> I've consulted my colleagues having implemented BFD on LAG at ZTE, only the dedicated multicast MAC is used and there is no any knob (also not suggested). > If there are no implementations exercising optional behavior, deprecating it > in 7130 could be considered as well. Absolutely. That would be an appropriate errata response once we have some data. [XM]>>> Yes, it seems more appropriate to take action on RFC 7130 rather than 9314. -- Jeff Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
