But please keep in mind that we are
> proposing 2 aspects here as mentioned above, and we feel the out-lived
> aspect in the diag field will be a very handy feature that can help
> redundancy.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sami
>
> >
> >-- Jeff
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Nov 2
ote:
>> Damn straight! I’ve been broaching that subject for a while. But that’s a
>> discussion for a separate (and much much longer and contentious) thread ☺
>>
>> Ashesh
>>
>> From: Greg Mirsky
>> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 6:20 PM
>> To:
ion for a separate (and much much longer and contentious) thread ☺
>
> Ashesh
>
> From: Greg Mirsky
> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 6:20 PM
> To: Ashesh Mishra
> Cc: Sami Boutros , Ankur Dubey ,
> "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , Reshad Rahman
> Subject: Re: Service
proposal that simplifies the
service structure.
Ashesh
From: Ankur Dubey
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 7:28 PM
To: Ashesh Mishra , Sami Boutros
, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
Cc: Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Ashesh,
In case you meant that C and D are network
at a given service is active only on one node.
Thanks,
--Ankur
From: Greg Mirsky
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:59 PM
To: Sami Boutros
Cc: Ashesh Mishra , Ankur Dubey ,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Hi Sami,
you've indicated
Dubey , Sami Boutros ,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
Cc: Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Ankur,
The bitmap that you mentioned in your previous email to demultiplex the
services needs more clarity. Where is that bitmap added in the BFD frame? How
does a bitmap represent a
2017 at 3:21 PM
To: Sami Boutros , Ankur Dubey ,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
Cc: Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Sami,
Thanks for the clarification. In a typical scenario, this will look like:
A <-\
\ \
for a given service.
Thanks,
--Ankur
From: Ankur Dubey
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 4:01 PM
To: Ashesh Mishra , Sami Boutros
, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
Cc: Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Hi Ashesh,
Yes, multiple services can be running between A & B.
outlook.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 1:14 PM
To: Sami Boutros mailto:sbout...@vmware.com>>, Ankur Dubey
mailto:adu...@vmware.com>>,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Cc: Reshad Rahman mailto:rrah...@cisco.c
fd@ietf.org>>
Cc: Reshad Rahman mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Okay. That makes sense now.
So in a scenario where you have a primary overlay service between A and B, and
a backup overlay service between C and D, the BFD sessions in question will be
be
f.org" , Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Hi Ashesh,
I agree that there are new scenarios and use cases to apply BFD-like mechanism.
Is it then time for BFD v2.0?
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ashesh Mishra
mailto:mishra.ash...@outlook.com>> wrot
at a given service is active only on one node.
Thanks,
--Ankur
From: Greg Mirsky
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:59 PM
To: Sami Boutros
Cc: Ashesh Mishra , Ankur Dubey ,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Hi Sami,
you've indicated
Dubey , Sami Boutros ,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
Cc: Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Ankur,
The bitmap that you mentioned in your previous email to demultiplex the
services needs more clarity. Where is that bitmap added in the BFD frame? How
does a bitmap represent a
Cc: *Sami Boutros , Ankur Dubey ,
> "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , Reshad Rahman
>
> *Subject: *Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
>
>
>
> Hi Ashesh,
>
> I believe that the abstract of RFC 5880 is very clear of what is the goal
> of BFD:
>
>This document d
: Sami Boutros , Ankur Dubey ,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Hi Ashesh,
I believe that the abstract of RFC 5880 is very clear of what is the goal of
BFD:
This document describes a protocol intended to detect faults in the
bidirect
at 2:20 PM
> To: Sami Boutros
> Cc: Ashesh Mishra , Ankur Dubey <
> adu...@vmware.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , Reshad Rahman <
> rrah...@cisco.com>
>
> Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
>
> Hi Sami,
> would C have BFD sessions to A and B
;>, Reshad Rahman
mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Hi Sami,
would C have BFD sessions to A and B respectively or it use anycast address?
The more I look at the use case, the more I think of VRRP ;)
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:15 PM, S
From: Ashesh Mishra
> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 1:45 PM
>
> To: Sami Boutros , Ankur Dubey , "
> rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
> Cc: Reshad Rahman
> Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
>
> Okay. That makes sense now.
>
>
>
> So in a scenario where you
vember 28, 2017 at 2:13 PM
To: Sami Boutros mailto:sbout...@vmware.com>>
Cc: Ankur Dubey mailto:adu...@vmware.com>>,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>, Reshad Rahman
mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: Service Redun
outlook.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 1:14 PM
To: Sami Boutros mailto:sbout...@vmware.com>>, Ankur Dubey
mailto:adu...@vmware.com>>,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Cc: Reshad Rahman mailto:rrah...@cisco.c
e. This notification will allow
> non-preemptive services to continue to run on the node that didn’t fail.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sami
> From: Greg Mirsky
> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:16 AM
> To: Ankur Dubey
> Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , Reshad Rahman <
>
er 28, 2017 at 1:23 PM
> *To: *Ashesh Mishra , Ankur Dubey <
> adu...@vmware.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
> *Cc: *Reshad Rahman
>
> *Subject: *Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
>
>
>
> Hi Ashesh,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
>
>
>
ber 28, 2017 at 4:21 PM
To: Ashesh Mishra , Ankur Dubey ,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
Cc: Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Hi Ashesh,
A service is an overlay service running on a routing node, this could be a L2
or L3 VPN service running on set of links connected to
mailto:adu...@vmware.com>>,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Cc: Reshad Rahman mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Thanks for the response, Sami. I think our disconnect lies in the definition o
org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Cc: Reshad Rahman mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>, Sami Boutros
mailto:sbout...@vmware.com>>
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Hi Ankur,
This is a good proposal to pursue within the BFD-wg.
Couple of comments
uesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:16 AM
To: Ankur Dubey mailto:adu...@vmware.com>>
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>, Reshad Rahman
mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>, Sami Boutros
mailto:sbout...@vmware.com>>
Subject: Re: Servic
tf.org>"
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Cc: Reshad Rahman mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>, Sami Boutros
mailto:sbout...@vmware.com>>
Subject: Re: Service Redundancy using BFD
Hi Ankur,
This is a good proposal to pursue within the BFD-wg.
Couple of comments:
- BFD ca
Hi Ankur,
usually this problem, as I understand it from the document, is handled by
the special protection coordination protocol as, for example, in RFC 6378
or G.8031. PSC or APS reflect roles of working and protecting paths and
communicate over the protecting path.
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Nov 27
Hi Ankur,
This is a good proposal to pursue within the BFD-wg.
Couple of comments:
- BFD can only signal this diag code for the interface that it is
monitoring (the IP next hop, MPLS LSP, etc.). You mention per-service (which I
assume means per-service-per-interface) failover in the d
29 matches
Mail list logo
