I support WG adoption this draft since it enables the use of BFD Demand mode
that reduces amount of BFD control messages received by the ingress BFD system.
Regards,
Aihua
原始邮件
发件人：GregMirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
收件人：IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org>;
抄送人：spring <spring@ietf.org>;spring-cha...@ietf.org
<spring-cha...@ietf.org>;draft-mirsky-spring-...@ietf.org
<draft-mirsky-spring-...@ietf.org>;
日 期 ：2020年09月15日 05:18
主 题 ：Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-mirsky-spring-bfd instate
"Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Dear All,I support the adoption of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd by the SPRING WG for
the following reasons:
optional control of the reverse path of the BFD session in SR-MPLS environment;
optional reduction of OAM data exchanged between BFD systems by using the BFD
in Demand mode over an SR-MPLS tunnel;
ability to monitor p2mp SR policies.
I want to highlight the third point. BFD (based on RFC 5880) has solutions for
lightweight mechanisms to detect defects in a p2mp tunnel. The solution defined
in RFC 8562 allows egress BFD nodes to monitor the state of the head-end and
related part of the multicast distribution tree. In some scenarios, it is
desirable for the head-end to be able to know the state of an egress node and
egress's view of the distribution tree. Three options listed in RFC 8563:
head notifications with multicast polling
head notifications with composite polling
unsolicited notifications
The two first options described in RFC 8563 in detail while the third is very
sketchy. This is the option discussed in the draft, pointing to the solution
defined in draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd.
Always welcome your questions.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:08 AM IETF Secretariat
<ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote:
The SPRING WG has placed draft-mirsky-spring-bfd in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Joel Halpern)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd/
Comment:
The authors have requested (quite some time ago) WG adoption for this
document. Looking at the archive, there was anot a lot of discussion, and
some concerns. Rather than try to infer the current state from the old
discussions, the WG Chairs have decided to issue a WG call for adoption. If
you support this becoming a WG document, please explain on the list. If you
oppose this becoming a WG document, please explain on the list. Silence does
not mean consent.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
