Thanks, Robert. As you note, the document notes the existing issues, and the existing room for vendor ability to deal with this in implementations.
Reshad and I have briefly chatted about ecmp considerations may be appropriate work for BFD to pursue as a new task. -- Jeff > On May 9, 2024, at 5:10 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > Dear WG, > > My main comment about this draft was in respect to the solution not working > well for ECMP paths and the latest version that it still remains to be the > issue. I was hoping we could resolve it better (for example just like > multipath traceroute does --> Hint: Paris Traceroute or maybe even Dublin > Traceroute). None of those need to be implementation specific (like draft > says in subsequent paragraph) and IMO BFD would really benefit from > standardizing it. > > Quote from the document: > > However, for testing forwarding over multiple hops, there is no such > specified general purpose BFD mechanism for exercising all links in an ECMP. > This may result in a BFD session being in the Up state while some traffic may > be dropped or otherwise negatively impacted along some component links. > > However clearly this is not really an issue with this specific document hence > I am supportive of progressing this work fwd. I am hearing that ECMP support > for BFD will be handled separately and that will be very useful > (feature/fix). > > Kind regards, > Robert > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 10:18 PM Reshad Rahman > <reshad=40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > <Re-resend since first 2 attempts seem to have gone to /dev/null> > > BFD WG, > > This email (re)starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for "BFD encapsulated > in large packets": > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets/> > > > Please take the time to review the document and provide comments by May 24th. > Feedback such as "I believe the document is ready to advance" is also welcome. > > FYI we did WGLC a few years ago, see previous discussions at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/rjyxii23qp8-EQSZQ7d8631kMwY/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/rjyxii23qp8-EQSZQ7d8631kMwY/> > > There is no known IPR for this document: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jaAjdrkePSocqvvcxt4ffx0NDg8/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jaAjdrkePSocqvvcxt4ffx0NDg8/> > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/> > > > Regards, > Reshad (co-chair). > > > > >
