Hi Greg, 

I'd expect as the editor of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8562/, you'd 
recognize the requirement for a P2MP delivery mechanism. The most obvious is a 
p2mp-sr-tree... So, if not a p2mp-sr-tree, what? 

You're comparing these drafts assuming the P2MP delivery exists when this isn't 
a realistic comparison. Where do these P2MP trees rooted at each VRRP router 
come from? They don't just grow on trees.... 

Acee

> On Apr 2, 2025, at 7:01 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Acee,
> could you please help me to understand what you see in 
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-p2mp-bfd as the requirement for existence of 
> p2mp-sr-tree between VRRP routers? IP encapsulation of BFD Control packets is 
> the same as of VRRP messages described in Section 7.2 of RFC 9568 with only 
> difference that BFD uses UDP. What am I missing?
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 1:56 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Reply via email to