Hi Greg, > On Apr 2, 2025, at 4:21 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Acee, > thank you for your question. In your expert option, what could be the role of > p2mp LSP in using p2mp BFD for fast detection of the Active Router in VRRP?
My comment is that while the P2MP BFD RFC doesn't state require it, the implementation is based on a p2mp-sr-tree. So, would one require the p2mp-sr-tree between VRRP routers for this to be used for faster VRRP detection using BFD. This seems like the wrong hammer for the job and your comparison is really isn't comparing apples to apples since you're assuming this p2mp-sr-tree exists. However, I don't have the time to debate this ad nauseam. Thanks, Acee > > Implementation of p2mp BFD was reported and mentioned in the Shepherd's > Write-up. Applicability of p2mp BFD according to RFC 8562 and RFC 8563 > specified in draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd. Although extensions defined in that > draft are useful, I can imagine how RFC 8562 can be applied in p2mp LSP using > other methods to bootstrap a p2mp BFD session. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 8:02 AM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 27, 2025, at 5:42 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Acee, > > AFAIK, there's at least one implementation of RFC 8562, which is the type > > of p2mp BFD used in this draft. Also, I should note that the failure > > detection mechanism in RFC 9026 Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover is RFC > > 8562 p2mp BFD. > > Is this P2MP BFD or BFD on P2MP LSPs that someone has implemented? If I'm > correct, then you'd require P2MP LSPs for VRRP? > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 3:22 AM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Is P2MP BFD widely deployed or even implemented? I know FRR doesn't support > > it. > > > > Also, prior to WG last call, can you provide the ietf-vrrp.yang > > augmentations the draft that would be needed to support this feature (both > > config and operational state)? > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > > On Mar 21, 2025, at 4:34 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear All, > > > As noted in the RTGWG meeting at IETF-122, two WG documents describe > > > BFD-based solutions in support of faster convergence in the VRRP > > > environment. Although both drafts use BFD mechanisms, these mechanisms > > > are significantly distinct, resulting in very different modifications to > > > the RFC 9568 VRRPv3 specification required by each solution. At some > > > point in the past, a single draft documents both solutions. Since the > > > solutions split, it seems that draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd has evolved > > > and is now ready for the WG LC. Hence, the question to the WG: > > > • Do you object to maintaining and publishing separate documents that > > > document BFD-based solutions in support of faster VRRP convergence? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org > > > To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org > > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
