-
> Balaji Rajagopalan
>
>
>
> From: Greg Mirsky
> Date: Saturday, 16 December 2017 at 3:33 AM
> To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A"
> Cc: Kireeti Kompella , Balaji Rajagopalan
> , Jeffrey Haas , "Carlos Pignataro
> (cpignata)" , "ginsb...@c
y Haas , "Carlos Pignataro
(cpignata)" , "ginsb...@cisco.com" ,
Thomas Nadeau , mpls , "Reshad Rahman
(rrahman)" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Hi Deborah, et. al,
I agree with the final text though I cannot ag
(rrahman)
; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Hi Deborah, et. al,
I agree with the final text though I cannot agree with the Notes where stating:
Technically, the reply cannot be optional, because the egress needs to report
LSP-Ping verification status to the
; Jeffrey Haas ; Carlos Pignataro
(cpignata) ; ginsb...@cisco.com; Thomas Nadeau
; mpls ; Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Hi Deborah,
I’m fine with Balaji’s proposal.
As I said, I’m fine with an erratum, but I leave it to the
insb...@cisco.com; Thomas Nadeau <
> tnad...@lucidvision.com>; mpls ; Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <
> rrah...@cisco.com>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
>
>
>
> Hi Deborah,
>
>
>
> I’m fine with Balaji’s
ire...@juniper.net>>, Thomas Nadeau
mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>>,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>, Alia Atlas
mailto:akat...@gmail.com>>
Subject
Thomas Nadeau
mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>>,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>, Alia Atlas
mailto:akat...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Repo
To: Balaji Rajagopalan
Cc: Mach Chen , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)"
, Jeffrey Haas , Kireeti Kompella
, Thomas Nadeau ,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
, Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Hi Balaj,
I think that
gt;,
"m...@ietf.org <mailto:m...@ietf.org>" <mailto:m...@ietf.org>>, Alia Atlas <mailto:akat...@gmail.com>>, Reshad <mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org
<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Subject: R
> Greg Mirsky
> *Cc:* Tom Nadeau ; m...@ietf.org; Alia Atlas <
> akat...@gmail.com>; Reshad Rahman (rrahman) ;
> rtg-bfd@ietf. org ; Kireeti Kompella <
> kire...@juniper.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
>
>
>
> Hi Les,
>
; mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>>, Tom Nadeau
mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>>,
"m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>" mailto:m...@ietf.org>>,
Alia Atlas mailto:akat...@gmail.com>>, Reshad
mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mail
(cpignata) ; Greg
Mirsky
Cc: Tom Nadeau ; m...@ietf.org; Alia Atlas
; Reshad Rahman (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.
org ; Kireeti Kompella
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Hi Les,
Just to be sure, you’re suggesting
a) Change the sentence “The egress LSR MAY respond … BFD
ompella , Alia Atlas , "Reshad
Rahman (rrahman)" , "rtg-bfd@ietf. org"
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
I tend to agree with Mach – and I think what Mach states is also reinforcing
the point that Carlos has made – which is that echo reply procedures are
de
g Mirsky
> *Date: *Wednesday, 23 August 2017 at 7:51 AM
> *To: *Balaji Rajagopalan
> *Cc: *Mach Chen , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <
> cpign...@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Haas , Kireeti Kompella <
> kire...@juniper.net>, Thomas Nadeau , "
> rtg-bfd@ietf.org&qu
d Rahman (rrahman)"
, Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Hi Balaji,
I've been thinking about the value of including BFD Discriminator TLV in echo
reply sent by egress. What we'd expect ingress to do upon receiving the reply?
Match to bfd.remoteDiscr? I t
ursday, 17 August 2017 at 8:45 AM
> *To: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" , Balaji
> Rajagopalan , Greg Mirsky ,
> Jeffrey Haas
> *Cc: *Kireeti Kompella , Thomas Nadeau <
> tnad...@lucidvision.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "Reshad
> Rahman (rrahman)&q
: Mach Chen
Date: Thursday, 17 August 2017 at 8:45 AM
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" , Balaji Rajagopalan
, Greg Mirsky , Jeffrey Haas
Cc: Kireeti Kompella , Thomas Nadeau
, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "Reshad
Rahman (rrahman)" , Alia Atlas
Subject: RE: [Technical
, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" ,
"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Hi Balaji,
thank you for sharing your experience with the issue. Had you captured what are
the values of the Return Mode field in Echo request packets in each
@ietf.org; Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
; Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
This sounds like a good summary of the tactical fix.
(Although, like Les wrote down, saying “MUST follow [LSP-Ping]” is better than
“MUST Send a Reply”)
As an aside -- When it comes to Interop, I
> Kireeti Kompella (kire...@juniper.net); Alia Atlas; Reshad Rahman
> (rrahman); rtg-bfd@ietf. org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
>
>
>
> Hi Mach and Les,
>
> thank you for your proposals.I think that the text provided by Les gives
>
15, 2017 9:56 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Mach Chen; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Tom Nadeau; m...@ietf.org; Kireeti
Kompella (kire...@juniper.net); Alia Atlas; Reshad Rahman (rrahman);
rtg-bfd@ietf. org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Hi Mach and Les,
thank you for
t;
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Rtg-bfd on behalf of Greg Mirsky <
> gregimir...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 11 August 2017 at 11:42 PM
> *To: *Jeffrey Haas
> *Cc: *Kireeti Kompella , Thomas Nadeau <
> tnad...@lucidvision.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" ,
Balaji Rajagopalan
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 1:23 AM
To: Greg Mirsky , Jeff Haas
Cc: Kireeti Kompella , Tom Nadeau
, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "Reshad
Rahman (rrahman)" , Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
I’m aware of three different b
Nadeau
, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "Reshad
Rahman (rrahman)" , Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Re-sending to the corrected list (apologies for duplicates).
Dear All,
I suggest to reject this proposal. The current text is clear and the mechani
etermine when to respond with an LSP Ping Echo reply message.*
>
> **
>
>
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Mach Chen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:56 AM
> *To:* Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Greg Mirsk
> On Aug 15, 2017:11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Kireeti Kompella
> wrote:
>
> As a co-author, I can say that the intent was that the LSP ping reply be
> sent, but the BFD discriminator be optional. Not sending an LSP ping reply
> could lead to the LSP being torn down.
>
> The basic idea here is to
As a co-author, I can say that the intent was that the LSP ping reply be sent,
but the BFD discriminator be optional. Not sending an LSP ping reply could
lead to the LSP being torn down.
The basic idea here is to use LSP ping to bootstrap a bfd session. But the
semantics of LSP ping don't cha
Atlas; Reshad Rahman (rrahman); rtg-bfd@ietf. org
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Hi all,
IMHO, the point is not about whether the Echo Reply is optional for a normal
LSP Ping, where the echo reply is totally controlled by the reply mode.
For RFC5884, since the reply m
Pignataro
(cpignata)
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 8:17 AM
To: Greg Mirsky
Cc: Tom Nadeau ; m...@ietf.org; Kireeti Kompella
(kire...@juniper.net) ; Alia Atlas ;
Reshad Rahman (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf. org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5085)
Greg,
This is my final email on
Greg,
This is my final email on this topic, since the arguments are now just silly
and not technically constructive.
1. It's not about understanding English. It's about understanding specs! The
"(if any)" that you quote means there are situations in which there's no echo
reply. As I already ex
Hi Carlos,
thank you for sharing your view on how LSP Echo request with BFD
Discriminator used to bootstrap a BFD session over MPLS LSP. I'm surprised
that you refer to RFC 8029 as normative reference when commenting on RFC
5884. But even if we look into RFC 8029, it still has the same texts I've
q
Hi Jeff, et al,
greatly appreciate the most detailed analysis that explains the reasoning
of the filed Errata. Please consider my in-lined and tagged with GIM>>
notes. And since in the center of this discussion is LSP Ping, I've added
MPLS WG.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:39 AM,
Greg,
> On Aug 11, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>
> Re-sending to the corrected list (apologies for duplicates).
>
> Dear All,
> I suggest to reject this proposal. The current text is clear and the
> mechanics of bootstrapping BFD session over MPLS LSP is well understood -
> remote pe
Jeff, WG,
I believe there is one additional consideration — please see inline.
On Aug 11, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Jeffrey Haas
mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote:
[Note that I have adjusted the addresses in the headers to try to catch the
RFC authors' current accounts.]
The 5884 interop issue keeps bubb
Re-sending to the corrected list (apologies for duplicates).
Dear All,
I suggest to reject this proposal. The current text is clear and the
mechanics of bootstrapping BFD session over MPLS LSP is well understood -
remote peer MUST start sending BFD control packets first and BFD peer MAY
send Echo
[Note that I have adjusted the addresses in the headers to try to catch the
RFC authors' current accounts.]
The 5884 interop issue keeps bubbling up. Balaji submitted an errata, which
provides us with a good place to start technical discussion.
Please note I also spent some time off-list discus
36 matches
Mail list logo
