Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

BFD WG, This concludes WGLC on the document. We have WG consensus, the next step is for me to write the shepherd report. Thanks to everyone who provided comments, both recently and a few years ago :-) And thanks also to the authors for addressing the comments promptly. Regards,Reshad. On Thu

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

On May 28, 2024, at 10:43 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Hopefully this addresses Alan's comments: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-11 That looks good, thanks. Alan DeKok.

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hopefully this addresses Alan's comments: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-11 -- Jeff > On May 27, 2024, at 3:26 PM, Reshad Rahman > wrote: > > Authors, I believe you have respo

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Authors, I believe you have responded to all comments/questions, except this one? Regards,Reshad. On Wednesday, May 22, 2024, 08:41:18 AM EDT, Alan DeKok wrote:   I support publication.   One nit / comment:  Section 4.3 and 4.4 discuss MTU issues.  It would also be good to note that

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

> On May 23, 2024, at 3:10 PM, Reshad Rahman wrote: > Good with me, I'll approve the PR. These comments addressed in -10. -- Jeff

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hi Jeff, On Thursday, May 23, 2024, 01:50:45 PM EDT, Jeffrey Haas wrote: Reshad, On May 23, 2024, at 12:47 PM, Reshad Rahman wrote: On Wednesday, May 22, 2024, 06:21:50 PM EDT, Jeffrey Haas wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 08:12:47PM +, Reshad Rahman wrote:> - Section 4.2: do

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Reshad, > On May 23, 2024, at 12:47 PM, Reshad Rahman wrote: >> On Wednesday, May 22, 2024, 06:21:50 PM EDT, Jeffrey Haas >> wrote: >> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 08:12:47PM +, Reshad Rahman wrote: >> > - Section 4.2: do we need 2119 language for the following paragraph and >> > should the sh

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hi Jeff, On Wednesday, May 22, 2024, 06:21:50 PM EDT, Jeffrey Haas wrote: Reshad, On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 08:12:47PM +, Reshad Rahman wrote: > - Section 4.2: do we need 2119 language for the following paragraph and > should the should be a MUST? >    In the case multiple BFD clie

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Reshad, On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 08:12:47PM +, Reshad Rahman wrote: > - Section 4.2: do we need 2119 language for the following paragraph and > should the should be a MUST? >In the case multiple BFD clients desire to test the same BFD >endpoints using different bfd.PaddedPduSize parame

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hi Jeff, I just took a look at -07, thanks for the updates. I am good with the changes made, ack for your response wrt operational data. - Section 4.2: do we need 2119 language for the following paragraph and should the should be a MUST? In the case multiple BFD clients desire to test the sa

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Greg, On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 05:08:15PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Dear Authors et al., > thank you for delivering a well-written and useful specification. I support > the publication of the draft. One minor note on wording used in Section > 4.3. I interpret "both sides of an interface", "each s

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

I support publication. One nit / comment: Section 4.3 and 4.4 discuss MTU issues. It would also be good to note that this process could detect MTU *changes*. i.e. someone buys a connection between A and B which has one particular MTU. Then unknown to them, some intermediary changes enc

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Jeff, OK, it’s fine that either you or the RFC Editor will make change. Best regards, Mach From: Jeffrey Haas Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 4:58 AM To: Mach Chen Cc: Reshad Rahman ; BFD WG Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets Mach, Thanks for the comment. I believe it'

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets (Jeffrey Haas)

Hi Les, > On May 21, 2024, at 2:40 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > Sooo…this was a real “blast-from-the-past” for me. > Over four years went by with no public updates – and in looking at the diffs between the latest version and V2 (which is where the discussion ended for me) it seems that not

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

I reviewed the draft and is well written and I support publication. This BFD large packets feature would be very useful for operators. Thanks Gyan On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 4:18 PM Reshad Rahman wrote: > > > BFD WG, > > This email (re)starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for "BFD > encapsul

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Dear Authors et al., thank you for delivering a well-written and useful specification. I support the publication of the draft. One minor note on wording used in Section 4.3. I interpret "both sides of an interface", "each side of the interface" as reference to a BFD peer. If that is the case, perha

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

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,

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

> On May 21, 2024, at 2:40 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > Sooo…this was a real “blast-from-the-past” for me. > Over four years went by with no public updates – and in looking at the diffs > between the latest version and V2 (which is where the discussion ended for > me) it seems th

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Mach, Thanks for the comment. I believe it's the case that the abbreviations that haven't been expanded fall under the RFC Editor's well known abbreviations: https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt Note the category with the asterisk (*) character that they are fine with not

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Sooo…this was a real “blast-from-the-past” for me. Over four years went by with no public updates – and in looking at the diffs between the latest version and V2 (which is where the discussion ended for me) it seems that not much has changed (albeit YANG section was introduced). I went back and

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hi all, I read the latest version of the draft, it’s well written and easy to read. I think it’s useful solution and ready to move forward. Some nits: - It’s better to expand the abbreviations (e.g., MTU, PDU, etc.) when first use. - s/path MTU/Path MTU (PMTU) when first use

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

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 D

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Dear WG, Thank you Gyan for your note. It very clearly highlights my primary concern expressed earlier of false assumptions on how engineers may try to (mis)use bfd-large in multihop cases. Below note is a brilliant example of how one may not realize that actual paths BFD packets take can be jus

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

gt; > Let me try again...inline... > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Jeffrey Haas > >> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 1:13 PM > >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > >> Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Reshad Rahman > >> (rr

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

aulikar (ketant) ; Reshad Rahman >> (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets >> >> Les, >> >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 09:14:08PM +, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: >>>> The primary reason this is a "may&q

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

om: Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 1:13 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Reshad Rahman > (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets > > Les, > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 09:14:08PM +000

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Les, On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 09:14:08PM +, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > The primary reason this is a "may" in the non-RFC 2119 sense is that our > > experience also suggests that when the scaling impacts are primarily pps > > rather than bps that this feature will likely have no major im

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hi Jeff, Imagine two scenarios which were already highlighted as justification for this work: *Scenario 1 -* IGP with nodes interconnected with ECMP links *Scenario 2 -* IGP nodes interconnected with L2 emulated circuits which in turn are riding on telco IP network with ECMPs or LAGs. *Question

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Jeff - Inline. > -Original Message- > From: Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:50 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Reshad Rahman > (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Les, On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:48:51PM +, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > A few more thoughts - maybe these are more helpful than my previous comments > - maybe not. I am sure you will let me know. > > Protocol extensions allowing negotiation and/or advertisement of support for > larger P

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

ed continuously as part of fast failure detection. Les > -Original Message- > From: Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 5:17 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Reshad Rahman > (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Les, > On Sep 18, 2019, at 10:37 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > First I would like to reemphasize that I support the draft - so we aren't on > opposite sides here. It is just that Last Call seems premature. The purpose of WGLC is to shake out final comments when things have otherwi

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Les > -Original Message- > From: Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 7:01 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Reshad Rahman > (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets > > Les

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Les, On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:06:13AM +, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > > If these protocol changes are to be made, shouldn't they be specified in > > this document?? Otherwise the document would seem just informational. > > > > No. There's not really any room in BFD v1 for negotiation

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Jeff - > -Original Message- > From: Jeffrey Haas > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:28 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Reshad Rahman > (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets > &g

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Les, On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 05:24:17AM +, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > 1)Sorry to be late in responding - but just back from vacation. I wouldn't know anything about that sort of problem. :-) > There are very legitimate concerns about the impact supporting padded BFD > PDUs may have on

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

t: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:34 AM > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets > > Ketan, > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > On Sep 12, 2019, at 11:55 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ket

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Carlo,s > On Sep 13, 2019, at 11:48 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > wrote: > Right. Or a burst of large packets and a set of bursts of “regular sized” > ones. My main point is that I’d like the spec to allow for flexibility in > usage if you think it makes sense, and not be all-or-nothing.

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Jeff, Right. Or a burst of large packets and a set of bursts of “regular sized” ones. My main point is that I’d like the spec to allow for flexibility in usage if you think it makes sense, and not be all-or-nothing. Thanks! Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows 2019/09

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Ketan, Thanks for your comments. > On Sep 12, 2019, at 11:55 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > wrote: > > Hi All, > > I would like to ask some questions and seek clarifications on this draft. > > • I am aware that this draft originates from practical pain points at a > specific opera

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Carlos, > On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > wrote: > > Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, > short and useful. > > I only have one comment in regards to: > >It is also worthy of note that even if an implementation can functi

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hi, Mahesh, On Sep 13, 2019, at 12:13 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Carlos, On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, short and usef

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Hi Carlos, > On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > wrote: > > Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, > short and useful. > > I only have one comment in regards to: > >It is also worthy of note that even if an implementation can funct

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

) Sent: 09 September 2019 20:26 To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets BFD WG, reminder that WGLC is ongoing for this document. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" mailto:rrah...@

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, short and useful. I only have one comment in regards to: It is also worthy of note that even if an implementation can function with larger transport PDUs, that additional packet size may have impact on BFD scaling.

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

I support the publication of this draft. It is useful, and addresses a problem in a network that we know has different MTU values. > On Aug 27, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) > wrote: > > BFD WG, > > As was mentioned at IETF105, this document is stable and there was an interop >

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

BFD WG, reminder that WGLC is ongoing for this document. Regards, Reshad. From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets BFD WG, As was mentioned at IETF105, this document