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
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
BFD Yang editors,
Please note that this model references BFD, but doesn't implement the
cfg-params. Please consider engaging the last call comments immediately.
-- Jeff
- Forwarded message from The IESG -
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:29:53 -0800
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: dra
Hi Ashesh,
Thanks for your comments.
For your first comment the draft applies to both single hop or what you call
interface BFD and multi hop BFD too. And yes the per service could be per
interface too if this is a single hop BFD, we can clarify that in the draft.
For your second comment, I am
Hi Greg,
The network in which the draft apply is neither an MPLS-TP or a G.8031 network.
It is for an IP packet network, and the mechanism described that we beleive is
useful is when a BFD session used to monitor liveness between 2 nodes (doing
active/standby redundancy for L2/L3 or L4-L7 servic
Thanks for the response, Sami. I think our disconnect lies in the definition of
a service. From a BFD perspective, I expect the service to be established
across two nodes, at the very least, so that BFD can monitor its liveness. Can
you elaborate on
- What, in the context of this draf
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 2 or more nodes, where
one node is active for a service at a given point in time, and one node is
standby.
Now, BFD is running on underlay links betwe
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
between A and C, and B and D (so that the backup can send diag code to primary)?
A <--- primary service -
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
bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including
interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding
Hi Sami,
I was not suggesting that it is either MPLS or Ethernet. I was pointing
that protection mechanisms use protection coordination for a reason and had
pointed to one example. But for the case you're presenting in the draft, I
think, the VRRP-like protocol may work quite nicely. In our draft t
Hi Ashesh,
The topology is more like the following:
A <—\
| \
BFD C
| /
B<—/
A and B are nodes providing L2 and L3 services for C, with A/S redundancy.
A can be active and B standby, if A goes down then B start providing the
services.
Thanks,
Sami
From: Ashesh Mishra
m
Hi Greg,
I am not sure I see how this apply? Improving convergence in VRRP has nothing
to do with what we have in this draft with BFD.
Please let’s not draw comparison between different things to start with.
Thanks,
Sami
From: Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November
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, Sami Boutros wrote:
>
> Hi Ashesh,
>
> The topology is more like the following:
>
> A <—\
> |
Hi Greg,
A can detect failures to the link to C using any mechanisms not only BFD.
The picture below is for illustration, A and B themselves can be providing
services (L4 to L7), this could include Firewall, NAT, LoadBalancer etc..
Thanks,
Sami
From: Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>
Hi Sami,
you've indicated that it is that one of the set of network functions (NF),
A and B in the figure below, that provides L2/L3 services to NF C. My
question was how C addresses the designated forwarder (DF) of the A-B set.
If it uses virtual address that associated with the function of the DF
Hi Greg,
I’m just trying to understand the use of BFD in this proposal.
I agree with you that 5880 was clear in its scope at the time, but that should
not inform the entire scope of BFD in the future.
Ashesh
From: Greg Mirsky
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 5:06 PM
To: Ashesh Mishra
Cc:
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
wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> I’m just trying to understand the use of BFD in this proposal.
>
>
>
> I agree with you
Ashesh,
The bitmap represents all the non-revertive services running between a pair of
nodes providing redundancy. One bit per non-revertive service.
The bitmap needs to be used only if a per-service failover has to be supported
(section 2.2). When there is at least one non-revertive service fo
Hi Greg,
If C and A-B are statically programmed, VRRP can be useful to indicate to node
C which node (A or B) is active for a given service. But, it does not help in
scenarios where A-B are doing dynamic routing with node C and the IPs on which
the services are being run themselves are dynami
19 matches
Mail list logo
