From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 17 18:07:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14721 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:07:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3k7l-0007fQ-5q for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:06:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2HN6vCN029471 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:06:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3k7k-0007fF-Vy for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:06:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14684 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:06:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3k7i-0003xu-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:06:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3k6j-0003qF-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:05:54 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3k5s-0003jG-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:05:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3k5t-00074P-1p; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:05:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3k5h-0006uX-0K for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:04:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14462 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:04:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3k5e-0003hG-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:04:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3k4k-0003aT-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:03:51 -0500 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3k47-0003NZ-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:03:11 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.90.247]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2HN2efX011305 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:02:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from eamrcnt750.exu.ericsson.se ([138.85.133.51]) by eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:00:35 -0600 Received: from ipirklin1.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (147.117.190.16 [147.117.190.16]) by eamrcnt750.exu.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id H13YY3X0; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:02:40 -0600 Received: from kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se [147.117.190.79]) by ipirklin1.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2HN2ZIU011538 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:02:35 -0500 Received: (from eudkasi@localhost) by kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (8.11.6/8.11.2) id i2HN2ZR20665; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:02:35 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se: eudkasi set sender to kaarthik.sivakumar@ericsson.com using -f To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Status of the bfd drafts From: Kaarthik Sivakumar Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:02:35 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2004 23:00:35.0937 (UTC) FILETIME=[A867E510:01C40C73] Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi The bfd drafts draft-katz-ward-bfd-01.txt and draft-katz-ward-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt have both expired. Are there plans to unexpire them soon? Thanks... kaarthik This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you. E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof. From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 18 14:53:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03594 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:53:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B43Zf-0005qT-UT for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:53:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2IJr3ZL022467 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:53:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B43Zf-0005qI-Mo for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:53:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03502 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B43Zc-0006kw-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:53:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B43Yj-0006c7-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:52:05 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B43Xf-0006S5-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:50:59 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B43ME-0003Gh-F0 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:39:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B43M7-0005O0-PL; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:39:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B43Ln-0005Gx-63 for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:38:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02866 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:38:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B43La-0005um-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:38:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B43Kf-0005sU-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:37:33 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B43Jn-0005o6-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:36:39 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2004 11:41:13 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (cfcentral.cisco.com [64.101.210.32]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i2IJa5K2002359; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:36:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from wardd@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id NAA27780; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:36:05 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:36:05 -0600 From: David Ward To: Kaarthik Sivakumar Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Status of the bfd drafts Message-ID: <20040318133605.I21721@cfcentral.cisco.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from kaarthik.sivakumar@ericsson.com on Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 06:02:35PM -0500 Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Yes ... any day now. -DWard & DKatz On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 06:02:35PM -0500, Kaarthik Sivakumar wrote: > Hi > > The bfd drafts draft-katz-ward-bfd-01.txt and > draft-katz-ward-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt have both expired. Are there > plans to unexpire them soon? > > Thanks... > > kaarthik > > > This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you. > > E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof. From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 22 18:44:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04402 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B5Z5U-0005E4-3T for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:44:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2MNi8n1020084 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:44:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B5Z5T-0005Dr-Vh for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:44:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04399 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:44:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B5Z5Q-0001EA-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:44:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B5Z4J-00014c-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:42:56 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B5Z3z-0000yh-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:42:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B5Z42-00052J-2p; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:42:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B5Z2P-0004wK-NG for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:40:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04268 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:40:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B5Z2M-0000rY-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:40:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B5Z1c-0000lP-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:40:09 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B5Z0j-0000eM-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:39:13 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B5Z0j-0003qz-AU for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:39:13 +0000 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:38:42 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62i) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Proposed BFD WG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HOT_NASTY, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks- There has been some interest in having a more formal home for the BFD work, so we're creating a (hopefully) very focused and short-lived WG for it. Below is the proposed WG charter that Daves and I have crafted. Please read and comment. Also note that we are looking for the second co-chair. If you would like to volunteer and have enough cycles to help, please send me an e-mail. -- Alex Zinin Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Current Status: Proposed Working Group Chairs (tentative): David Ward XXXXX XXXXXX Routing Area Directors: Bill Fenner Alex Zinin Routing Area Advisor: Alex Zinin Mailing Lists: General Discussion: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Send mail to: rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org With a subject line: subscribe Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/rtg-bfd-wg Description of Working Group: The BFD Working Group is chartered to specify a protocol for bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD), as well as extensions to be used within the scope of BFD and IP routing, in a way that will encourage multiple, inter-operable vendor implementations. BFD is 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 engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. It operates independently of media, data protocols, and routing protocols. An additional goal is to provide a single mechanism that can be used for liveness detection over any media, at any protocol layer, with a wide range of detection times and overhead, to avoid a proliferation of different methods. Important characteristics of BFD include: - Simple, fixed-field encoding to facilitate implementations in hardware - Independence of the data protocol being forwarded between two systems. BFD packets are carried as the payload of whatever encapsulating protocol is appropriate for the medium and network. - Path independence: BFD can provide failure detection on any kind of path between systems, including direct physical links, virtual circuits, tunnels, MPLS LSPs, multihop routed paths, and unidirectional links (so long as there is some return path, of course.) - Ability to be bootstrapped by any other protocol that automatically forms peer, neighbor or adjacency relationships to seed BFD endpoint discovery. At this time the WG is chartered to complete the following work items (additional items will require rechartering): 1. Develop the base BFD protocol specification and submit it to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard 2. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 and IPv6 adjacencies and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. 3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE 802.3 and Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. 4. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. 5. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. Goals and Milestones: Aug 04 Submit the base protocol specification to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard. Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 and IPv6 adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard Nov 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for Ethernet to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard Nov 04 Submit BFD MIB to the IESG to be considered as Proposed Standard. Internet-Drafts (to be WG items): draft-katz-ward-bfd-01.txt draft-katz-ward-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt draft-raggarwa-mpls-bfd-00.txt draft-nadeau-bfd-mib-00.txt From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 24 02:05:27 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07944 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:05:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B62Re-0007VD-GQ for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:04:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2O74wY7028834 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:04:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B62Re-0007Ui-7R for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:04:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07395 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:04:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B62Ra-0006nx-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:04:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B62Qa-0006cT-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:03:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B62Pi-0006S0-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:02:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B62Pl-0006Wc-5E; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B62Pf-0006Tt-Tv for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:02:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05205 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:02:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B62Pc-0006RG-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:02:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B62Oe-0006Ei-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:01:53 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B62Ng-0005ru-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:00:52 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2O70LN23781 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:00:21 +0200 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:00:21 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Two comments to the proposed charter.. On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Alex Zinin wrote: > 2. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 and IPv6 > adjacencies and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as > a Proposed Standard. This takes no stance on which protocols this would be run. I.e., we must specify how to configure the usage for adjacencies in a certain protocol. (Like, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, IS-IS, eBGP, ....) Is this worth spelling out? > 3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE 802.3 and > Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a > Proposed Standard. I'm not sure how this relates to the forming of adjacencies. Certainly, it would be very useful to run just one instance of BFD over Ethernet -- so that in case you'd run multiple protocols over the same media, you need only one set of hello mechanisms -- but I don't know how this relates to the adjancency establishment and the rest of the BFD framework. Maybe need a bit of clarifying here. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 24 03:21:37 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04202 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:21:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B63dL-0005lr-Uj for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:21:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2O8L7HM022182 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:21:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B63dL-0005lh-P8 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:21:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04125 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:21:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B63dJ-00078x-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:21:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B63cM-0006su-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:20:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B63bK-0006cd-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:19:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B63bL-0005Z3-Pe; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:19:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B63an-0005OP-0t for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:18:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA03918 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B63ak-0006R6-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:18:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B63Zr-0006C9-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:17:32 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B63Z7-0005wY-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:16:46 -0500 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i2O8G9l31608; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:16:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from sapphire.juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2O8G4J13526; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:16:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from localhost (rahul@localhost) by sapphire.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2O8G2K77831; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:16:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) X-Authentication-Warning: sapphire.juniper.net: rahul owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:16:02 -0800 (PST) From: Rahul Aggarwal To: Pekka Savola cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040324000117.V58949@sapphire.juniper.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Pekka, On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Pekka Savola wrote: > Two comments to the proposed charter.. > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Alex Zinin wrote: > > 2. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 and IPv6 > > adjacencies and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as > > a Proposed Standard. > > This takes no stance on which protocols this would be run. I.e., we > must specify how to configure the usage for adjacencies in a certain > protocol. (Like, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, IS-IS, eBGP, ....) > > Is this worth spelling out? > As long as a protocol or application can bootstrap a BFD session over IP, there should be no limitation on which protocols can be run. If there are specific bootstrapping details, that can help in inter-operability they should be spelled out. I am assuming that 'usage profile' implies that.. > > 3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE 802.3 and > > Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a > > Proposed Standard. > > I'm not sure how this relates to the forming of adjacencies. > Certainly, it would be very useful to run just one instance of BFD > over Ethernet -- so that in case you'd run multiple protocols over the > same media, you need only one set of hello mechanisms -- but I don't > know how this relates to the adjancency establishment and the rest of > the BFD framework. Maybe need a bit of clarifying here. > Again it seems that 'usage profile' captures the above.. rahul > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > > > > From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 24 04:13:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA07244 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B64Ra-0002ij-3p for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:13:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2O9D2Ld010457 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:13:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B64RZ-0002iX-UB for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA07217 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:12:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B64RX-0003DK-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:12:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B64Qa-0002z6-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:12:00 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B64Pc-0002kW-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:11:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B64Pe-0002dV-7W; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B64P2-0002Oz-6U for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:10:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA06974 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B64Oz-0002Yr-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:10:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B64Ny-0002Kw-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:09:19 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B64NI-00026E-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:08:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2O985225722; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:08:05 +0200 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:08:05 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Rahul Aggarwal cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG In-Reply-To: <20040324000117.V58949@sapphire.juniper.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Rahul Aggarwal wrote: > > This takes no stance on which protocols this would be run. I.e., we > > must specify how to configure the usage for adjacencies in a certain > > protocol. (Like, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, IS-IS, eBGP, ....) > > > > Is this worth spelling out? > > As long as a protocol or application can bootstrap a BFD > session over IP, there should be no limitation on which protocols can be > run. Right. > If there are specific bootstrapping details, that can help in > inter-operability they should be spelled out. I am assuming that 'usage > profile' implies that.. But as you say, there are likely some details to bootstrapping which should be spelled out. The point is, do we want to state in charter which protocols (at least) should have usage profiles? Do we leave it empty? Do we rule out some protocols from usage profiles? > > > 3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE 802.3 and > > > Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a > > > Proposed Standard. > > > > I'm not sure how this relates to the forming of adjacencies. > > Certainly, it would be very useful to run just one instance of BFD > > over Ethernet -- so that in case you'd run multiple protocols over the > > same media, you need only one set of hello mechanisms -- but I don't > > know how this relates to the adjancency establishment and the rest of > > the BFD framework. Maybe need a bit of clarifying here. > > Again it seems that 'usage profile' captures the above.. Except that protocols typically do not exchange adjcacencies between Ethernet addresses -- so this appears to be independent of the adjacency forming process. Or are you saying, "usage profile for BFD over Ethernet between manually configured end-points" ? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 24 14:35:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15263 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6E9C-0007hk-PC for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:34:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2OJYgaS029615 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:34:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6E9C-0007ha-Ix for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:34:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15229 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6E9A-0000CF-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:34:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6E8E-00006o-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:33:43 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6E7W-00000n-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:32:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6E7Y-0007XR-BY; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:33:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6E72-0007QL-0N for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:32:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15060 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6E6z-0007jr-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:32:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6E5z-0007et-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:31:24 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6E59-0007Yt-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:30:31 -0500 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i2OJTsl37757; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:29:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from sapphire.juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2OJTnJ85561; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:29:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from localhost (rahul@localhost) by sapphire.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2OJTn155853; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:29:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) X-Authentication-Warning: sapphire.juniper.net: rahul owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:29:49 -0800 (PST) From: Rahul Aggarwal To: Pekka Savola cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040324111819.E44009@sapphire.juniper.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Pekka, [snip] > > > > As long as a protocol or application can bootstrap a BFD > > session over IP, there should be no limitation on which protocols can be > > run. > > Right. > > > If there are specific bootstrapping details, that can help in > > inter-operability they should be spelled out. I am assuming that 'usage > > profile' implies that.. > > But as you say, there are likely some details to bootstrapping which > should be spelled out. > > The point is, do we want to state in charter which protocols (at > least) should have usage profiles? Do we leave it empty? Do we rule > out some protocols from usage profiles? > Imho this is a detail that can be worked out when the WG discusses the BFD over IPv4 document. Bootstrapping details can be added where they seem necessary. Don't think the charter needs to spell it out.. > > > > 3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE 802.3 and > > > > Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a > > > > Proposed Standard. > > > > > > I'm not sure how this relates to the forming of adjacencies. > > > Certainly, it would be very useful to run just one instance of BFD > > > over Ethernet -- so that in case you'd run multiple protocols over the > > > same media, you need only one set of hello mechanisms -- but I don't > > > know how this relates to the adjancency establishment and the rest of > > > the BFD framework. Maybe need a bit of clarifying here. > > > > Again it seems that 'usage profile' captures the above.. > > Except that protocols typically do not exchange adjcacencies between > Ethernet addresses -- so this appears to be independent of the > adjacency forming process. > There is no assumption here that IP protocols are running over the Ethernet links. BFD over ethernet can be used between a router and an ethernet switch, for example. > Or are you saying, "usage profile for BFD over Ethernet between > manually configured end-points" ? > I am saying that bootstrapping mechanims are application specific, whether for BFD for IPv4, ethernet etc. They should certainly be spelled out when needed and it can be done as part of completing the encap/usage profile spec.. rahul > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 24 14:42:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15909 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6EGC-0000wJ-9n for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:41:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2OJfu7G003605 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:41:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6EGC-0000w4-5k for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:41:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15881 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:41:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6EG9-000161-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:41:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6EFO-0000yz-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:41:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6EEK-0000pE-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:40:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6EEM-0000mM-At; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:40:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6EE8-0000jt-FL for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:39:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15703 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:39:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6EE5-0000n2-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:39:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6ED8-0000eR-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:38:47 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6ECG-0000S6-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:37:52 -0500 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i2OJbMBm035664; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:37:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from sapphire.juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2OJbMJ86550; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:37:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from localhost (rahul@localhost) by sapphire.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2OJbMu57237; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:37:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) X-Authentication-Warning: sapphire.juniper.net: rahul owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:37:22 -0800 (PST) From: Rahul Aggarwal To: Alex Zinin cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: BFD WG charter In-Reply-To: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> Message-ID: <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> References: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Alex and WG, [snip] > - Path independence: BFD can provide failure detection on any kind of path > between systems, including direct physical links, virtual circuits, tunnels, > MPLS LSPs, multihop routed paths, and unidirectional links (so long > as there is some return path, of course.) > > - Ability to be bootstrapped by any other protocol that automatically forms > peer, neighbor or adjacency relationships to seed BFD endpoint discovery. > > At this time the WG is chartered to complete the following work items > (additional items will require rechartering): > > 1. Develop the base BFD protocol specification and submit it to the IESG > for publication as a Proposed Standard > > 2. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 and IPv6 > adjacencies and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as > a Proposed Standard. > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE tunnels) in the charter at this point ? rahul > 3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE 802.3 and > Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a > Proposed Standard. > > 4. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs and submit > the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. > > 5. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for publication > as a Proposed Standard. > > > Goals and Milestones: > > Aug 04 Submit the base protocol specification to the IESG to be considered > as a Proposed Standard. > > Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop > IPv4 and IPv6 > adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard > > Nov 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for Ethernet to the > IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard > > Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs to the > IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard > > Nov 04 Submit BFD MIB to the IESG to be considered as Proposed Standard. > > > Internet-Drafts (to be WG items): > > draft-katz-ward-bfd-01.txt > draft-katz-ward-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt > draft-raggarwa-mpls-bfd-00.txt > draft-nadeau-bfd-mib-00.txt > > > From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 24 16:23:05 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22093 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:23:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Fpd-0000H6-2b for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:22:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2OLMbV2001048 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:22:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Fpc-0000Gp-Rx for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:22:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22083 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:22:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Fpb-0002CG-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:22:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Fop-00028B-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:21:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Fo5-00022b-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:21:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Fo5-0008T9-Us; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Fnh-0008Rc-5Q for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:20:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21984 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:20:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Fnf-0001zx-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:20:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Fmi-0001vh-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:19:36 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6FmP-0001rV-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:19:17 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2004 13:23:54 +0000 Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i2OLIXUg022058; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from tnadeauvmware (dhcp-10-86-162-228.cisco.com [10.86.162.228]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AHB65848; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:18:32 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" To: "'Rahul Aggarwal'" , "'Alex Zinin'" Cc: Subject: RE: BFD WG charter Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:16:37 -0500 Organization: Cisco Systems Message-ID: <001e01c411e5$4ccf8d30$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rahul Aggarwal Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 2:37 PM To: Alex Zinin Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: BFD WG charter Hi Alex and WG, [snip] > - Path independence: BFD can provide failure detection on any kind of path > between systems, including direct physical links, virtual circuits, tunnels, > MPLS LSPs, multihop routed paths, and unidirectional links (so long > as there is some return path, of course.) > > - Ability to be bootstrapped by any other protocol that automatically forms > peer, neighbor or adjacency relationships to seed BFD endpoint > discovery. > > At this time the WG is chartered to complete the following work items > (additional items will require rechartering): > > 1. Develop the base BFD protocol specification and submit it to the IESG > for publication as a Proposed Standard > > 2. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 and IPv6 > adjacencies and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as > a Proposed Standard. > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE tunnels) in the charter at this point ? I think we need to be careful because other WGs are already taking this on. For example, PWE3's VCCV already includes a BFD mode over pseudo-wires. I don't think we want to take that on in the BFD WG. Similarly with BFD/MPLS, I think that is something to handle in MPLS. We might however, want to think about guidance/guidelines for such activities in other WGs. --Tom rahul > 3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE 802.3 and > Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as a > Proposed Standard. > > 4. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs and submit > the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed > Standard. > > 5. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for publication > as a Proposed Standard. > > > Goals and Milestones: > > Aug 04 Submit the base protocol specification to the IESG to be considered > as a Proposed Standard. > > Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop > IPv4 and IPv6 > adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed > Standard > > Nov 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for Ethernet to the > IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard > > Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs to the > IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard > > Nov 04 Submit BFD MIB to the IESG to be considered as Proposed Standard. > > > Internet-Drafts (to be WG items): > > draft-katz-ward-bfd-01.txt draft-katz-ward-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt > draft-raggarwa-mpls-bfd-00.txt > draft-nadeau-bfd-mib-00.txt > > > From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 24 17:19:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25233 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6GiM-0005EC-FJ for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:19:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2OMJA5W020090 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:19:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6GiM-0005Dx-8O for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:19:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25103 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:19:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6GiJ-0006XP-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:19:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Gfs-00066g-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:16:37 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6GfF-000640-02 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:57 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B6GeL-0001Ch-1z for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6GeK-0004wC-LZ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Gdo-0004rR-6C for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:14:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25003 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:14:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Gdl-00062C-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:14:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Gcu-00060p-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:13:32 -0500 Received: from colt-na165.alcatel.fr ([62.23.212.165] helo=smail.alcatel.fr) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6GcO-0005yY-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:13:00 -0500 Received: from bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.11]) by smail.alcatel.fr (ALCANET/NETFR) with ESMTP id i2OMCsIe015529; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:12:54 +0100 Received: from alcatel.be ([138.203.118.5]) by bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004032423125186:11 ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:12:51 +0100 Message-ID: <40620855.9020900@alcatel.be> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:14:45 +0100 From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tnadeau@cisco.com, "'Rahul Aggarwal'" Cc: "'Alex Zinin'" , rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD WG charter References: <001e01c411e5$4ccf8d30$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> In-Reply-To: <001e01c411e5$4ccf8d30$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 03/24/2004 23:12:52, Serialize by Router on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 03/24/2004 23:12:54, Serialize complete at 03/24/2004 23:12:54 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Alcanet-MTA-scanned-and-authorized: yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hi thomas, rahul, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Rahul Aggarwal > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 2:37 PM > To: Alex Zinin > Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: BFD WG charter > > > > > Hi Alex and WG, > > [snip] > > >> - Path independence: BFD can provide failure detection on any kind > > of path > >> between systems, including direct physical links, virtual > > circuits, tunnels, > >> MPLS LSPs, multihop routed paths, and unidirectional links (so > > long > >> as there is some return path, of course.) >> >> - Ability to be bootstrapped by any other protocol that > > automatically forms > >> peer, neighbor or adjacency relationships to seed BFD endpoint >>discovery. >> >>At this time the WG is chartered to complete the following work items >>(additional items will require rechartering): >> >>1. Develop the base BFD protocol specification and submit it to the > > IESG > >> for publication as a Proposed Standard >> >>2. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 > > and IPv6 > >> adjacencies and submit the specification to the IESG for > > publication as > >> a Proposed Standard. >> > > > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE > tunnels) in the charter at this point ? rahul, do you think we have to consider this (1) at the same level, or (2) taking into account this aspect while devicing first the single-hop case > I think we need to be careful because other > WGs are already taking this on. For example, > PWE3's VCCV already includes a BFD mode over pseudo-wires. L3VPN/L2VPN approaches today include BGP and over time the following arose (see complete e-mail on the topic (*): "Appropriate level of technical review by the protocol-specific WGs needs to be ensured, regardless of whether extensions to a given protocol are defined in a separate document or not." so i worry a bit about the terms "are already taking this on" (*) > I don't think we want to take that on in the BFD WG. Similarly > with BFD/MPLS, I think that is something to handle in MPLS. We > might however, want to think about guidance/guidelines for such > activities in other WGs. and why those guidance/guidelines wouldn't come from the mpls wg to the bfd wg in terms of the "oam requirement/framework" umbrella documents (for the parts that are applicable in the present context) and that are currently ongoing at the mpls wg ? thanks, - dimitri. > --Tom > > > > > > rahul > > > >>3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE > > 802.3 and > >> Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for > > publication as a > >> Proposed Standard. >> >>4. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs and > > submit > >> the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed >>Standard. >> >>5. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for > > publication > >> as a Proposed Standard. >> >> >>Goals and Milestones: >> >>Aug 04 Submit the base protocol specification to the IESG to be > > considered > >> as a Proposed Standard. >> >>Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop >>IPv4 and IPv6 >> adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed >>Standard >> >>Nov 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for Ethernet to > > the > >> IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard >> >>Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs to > > the > >> IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard >> >>Nov 04 Submit BFD MIB to the IESG to be considered as Proposed > > Standard. > >> >>Internet-Drafts (to be WG items): >> >>draft-katz-ward-bfd-01.txt draft-katz-ward-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt >>draft-raggarwa-mpls-bfd-00.txt >>draft-nadeau-bfd-mib-00.txt >> >> >> > > > > > -- Papadimitriou Dimitri E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com Webpage: http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/ Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone : +32 3 240-8491 From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 24 17:24:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25821 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:24:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Gmw-0005ng-MD for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:23:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2OMNsMn022292 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:23:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Gmw-0005nT-CJ for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:23:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25785 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Gmt-0007Li-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:23:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Gls-0007EE-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:22:49 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Gl5-00076R-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:21:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Gl6-0005cf-M8; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:22:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6GkR-0005ZS-WD for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:21:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25584 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6GkP-0006zG-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:21:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6GjD-0006kY-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:20:05 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6GhP-0006Hh-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:18:11 -0500 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2004 14:17:42 -0800 Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i2OMHZGZ009410; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:17:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from tnadeauvmware ([161.44.71.144]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AHB72288; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:17:34 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" To: , "'Rahul Aggarwal'" Cc: "'Alex Zinin'" , Subject: RE: BFD WG charter Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:39 -0500 Organization: Cisco Systems Message-ID: <000401c411ed$8dec4710$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <40620855.9020900@alcatel.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:15 PM To: tnadeau@cisco.com; 'Rahul Aggarwal' Cc: 'Alex Zinin'; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD WG charter hi thomas, rahul, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Rahul Aggarwal > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 2:37 PM > To: Alex Zinin > Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: BFD WG charter > > > > > Hi Alex and WG, > > [snip] > > >> - Path independence: BFD can provide failure detection on any kind > > of path > >> between systems, including direct physical links, virtual > > circuits, tunnels, > >> MPLS LSPs, multihop routed paths, and unidirectional links (so > > long > >> as there is some return path, of course.) >> >> - Ability to be bootstrapped by any other protocol that > > automatically forms > >> peer, neighbor or adjacency relationships to seed BFD endpoint >>discovery. >> >>At this time the WG is chartered to complete the following work items >>(additional items will require rechartering): >> >>1. Develop the base BFD protocol specification and submit it to the > > IESG > >> for publication as a Proposed Standard >> >>2. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 > > and IPv6 > >> adjacencies and submit the specification to the IESG for > > publication as > >> a Proposed Standard. >> > > > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE > tunnels) in the charter at this point ? rahul, do you think we have to consider this (1) at the same level, or (2) taking into account this aspect while devicing first the single-hop case > I think we need to be careful because other > WGs are already taking this on. For example, > PWE3's VCCV already includes a BFD mode over pseudo-wires. L3VPN/L2VPN approaches today include BGP and over time the following arose (see complete e-mail on the topic (*): "Appropriate level of technical review by the protocol-specific WGs needs to be ensured, regardless of whether extensions to a given protocol are defined in a separate document or not." so i worry a bit about the terms "are already taking this on" (*) > I don't think we want to take that on in the BFD WG. Similarly with > BFD/MPLS, I think that is something to handle in MPLS. We might > however, want to think about guidance/guidelines for such activities > in other WGs. and why those guidance/guidelines wouldn't come from the mpls wg to the bfd wg in terms of the "oam requirement/framework" umbrella documents (for the parts that are applicable in the present context) and that are currently ongoing at the mpls wg ? That is what I was getting at in terms of "guidance". Guidance can be bi-directional. *) --Tom thanks, - dimitri. > --Tom > > > > > > rahul > > > >>3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE > > 802.3 and > >> Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for > > publication as a > >> Proposed Standard. >> >>4. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs and > > submit > >> the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed >>Standard. >> >>5. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for > > publication > >> as a Proposed Standard. >> >> >>Goals and Milestones: >> >>Aug 04 Submit the base protocol specification to the IESG to be > > considered > >> as a Proposed Standard. >> >>Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop >>IPv4 and IPv6 >> adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed >>Standard >> >>Nov 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for Ethernet to > > the > >> IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard >> >>Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs to > > the > >> IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard >> >>Nov 04 Submit BFD MIB to the IESG to be considered as Proposed > > Standard. > >> >>Internet-Drafts (to be WG items): >> >>draft-katz-ward-bfd-01.txt draft-katz-ward-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt >>draft-raggarwa-mpls-bfd-00.txt >>draft-nadeau-bfd-mib-00.txt >> >> >> > > > > > -- Papadimitriou Dimitri E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com Webpage: http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/ Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone : +32 3 240-8491 From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 24 17:48:02 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26747 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:48:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6H9r-00089H-0M for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:47:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2OMlYe4031317 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:47:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6H9q-000892-RT for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:47:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26743 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6H9o-0000vv-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:47:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6H8u-0000tG-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:46:36 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6H8I-0000qB-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:45:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6H8K-00081V-VV; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:46:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6H7l-0007jc-K3 for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:45:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26624 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:45:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6H7j-0000no-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:45:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6H6j-0000ks-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:44:21 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6H5l-0000i2-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:43:21 -0500 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i2OMgjBm036347; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:42:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from sapphire.juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2OMgjJ14799; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:42:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from localhost (rahul@localhost) by sapphire.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2OMgi790679; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:42:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) X-Authentication-Warning: sapphire.juniper.net: rahul owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:42:44 -0800 (PST) From: Rahul Aggarwal To: "Thomas D. Nadeau" cc: "'Alex Zinin'" , "" Subject: RE: BFD WG charter In-Reply-To: <001e01c411e5$4ccf8d30$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> Message-ID: <20040324143821.N44009@sapphire.juniper.net> References: <001e01c411e5$4ccf8d30$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Tom, [snip] > > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE > tunnels) in the charter at this point ? > > I think we need to be careful because other > WGs are already taking this on. I am not aware of any other WG taking on BFD over IP tunnels. > For example, > PWE3's VCCV already includes a BFD mode over pseudo-wires. That is for PWs, not PSN IP/GRE tunnels. rahul > --Tom > > > > > > rahul > > > > 3. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile over Ethernet (IEEE > 802.3 and > > Ethernet_II) and submit the specification to the IESG for > publication as a > > Proposed Standard. > > > > 4. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs and > submit > > the specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed > > Standard. > > > > 5. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for > publication > > as a Proposed Standard. > > > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > Aug 04 Submit the base protocol specification to the IESG to be > considered > > as a Proposed Standard. > > > > Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop > > IPv4 and IPv6 > > adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed > > Standard > > > > Nov 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for Ethernet to > the > > IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard > > > > Aug 04 Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs to > the > > IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard > > > > Nov 04 Submit BFD MIB to the IESG to be considered as Proposed > Standard. > > > > > > Internet-Drafts (to be WG items): > > > > draft-katz-ward-bfd-01.txt draft-katz-ward-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt > > draft-raggarwa-mpls-bfd-00.txt > > draft-nadeau-bfd-mib-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > > From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 01:52:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19742 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:52:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6OiO-0000ej-3n for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:51:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2P6pink002515 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:51:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6OiN-0000eT-U8 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:51:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19712 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:51:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6OiK-0000t1-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:51:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6OhR-0000pM-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:50:45 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Ogh-0000lu-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:49:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Ogj-0000ON-Cz; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:50:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6OgZ-0000Ng-I6 for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:49:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19669 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:49:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6OgW-0000l2-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:49:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Ofe-0000gv-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:48:55 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Of1-0000ac-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:48:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2P6lg614023; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:47:42 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:47:42 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Rahul Aggarwal cc: Alex Zinin , Subject: Re: BFD WG charter In-Reply-To: <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Rahul Aggarwal wrote: > > 2. Document BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop IPv4 and IPv6 > > adjacencies and submit the specification to the IESG for publication as > > a Proposed Standard. > > > > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE > tunnels) in the charter at this point ? Seems like a more difficult problem to me. If we are going to do, at least work on it after we've finished what else (except maybe the MIB) on our plate... -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 02:00:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20384 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6OqE-00014s-UN for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:59:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2P6xoK8004137 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:59:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6OqE-00014e-QN for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:59:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20116 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:59:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6OqB-0001f1-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:59:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Op9-0001Zo-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:58:44 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6OoQ-0001Vc-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:57:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6OoS-00010e-SD; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:58:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Oo9-0000ys-W9 for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:57:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19983 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:57:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Oo6-0001Sq-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:57:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6On9-0001Lb-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:56:40 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6OmD-0001D1-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:55:41 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2P6tAC14163; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:55:10 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:55:10 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Rahul Aggarwal cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG In-Reply-To: <20040324111819.E44009@sapphire.juniper.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Rahul Aggarwal wrote: > > The point is, do we want to state in charter which protocols (at > > least) should have usage profiles? Do we leave it empty? Do we rule > > out some protocols from usage profiles? > > Imho this is a detail that can be worked out when the WG discusses the BFD > over IPv4 document. Bootstrapping details can be added where they seem > necessary. Don't think the charter needs to spell it out.. You said "over IPv4" but you meant "over IP", I hope. Any work that would start with only IPv4 would be completely inappropriate. IMHO, this is probably an important point. If we don't know any protocols we'd like to rule out right now, they should be listed there. On the other hand, listing the protocols which we should AT LEAST work on would be equally useful; for example, the list could be at least: IS-IS (both IPv4 and IPv6), OSPFv2, OSPFv3, eBGP, {static routes}. That would give the reader of the charter a better picture of what we're (at least) trying to solve. > > Except that protocols typically do not exchange adjcacencies between > > Ethernet addresses -- so this appears to be independent of the > > adjacency forming process. > > There is no assumption here that IP protocols are running over the > Ethernet links. BFD over ethernet can be used between a router and an > ethernet switch, for example. (OK; I mistunderstood this. I think the charter needs to be more specific what the action item means in practice.) Sorry for misunderstanding. But again, as above, it would be appropriate to describe this context. Which adjacency-forming protocol are you running between a router and switch which would be used to trigger these BFD adjacencies? If you don't configure these manually, that's a key point here. > > Or are you saying, "usage profile for BFD over Ethernet between > > manually configured end-points" ? > > I am saying that bootstrapping mechanims are application specific, whether > for BFD for IPv4, ethernet etc. They should certainly be spelled out when > needed and it can be done as part of completing the encap/usage profile > spec.. Yep -- these certainly will be worked at, but trying to figure out what _at least_ is in scope would be highly useful -- rather than leaving this unspecified, blank. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 09:56:54 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26269 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6WHQ-0007TB-IC for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:56:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PEuOQ6028712 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:56:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6WHQ-0007T1-CK for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:56:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26151 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6WHO-00042A-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:56:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6WGW-0003uH-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:55:28 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6WFH-0003lA-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:54:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6WFI-0007Dx-2u; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:54:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6WF4-0007CR-Mf for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:53:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25910 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:53:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6WF1-0003iH-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:53:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6WE8-0003cL-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:53:01 -0500 Received: from mail.sonusnet.com ([208.45.178.33] helo=revere.sonusnet.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6WDD-0003Tg-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:52:03 -0500 Received: from sonusms1.sonusnet.com (sonusms1 [10.128.32.93]) by revere.sonusnet.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id i2PEpWpI006082 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:51:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonusmail03.sonusnet.com (unverified) by sonusms1.sonusnet.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:51:32 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Proposed BFD WG X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:51:31 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Proposed BFD WG Thread-Index: AcQSNoTGcReUVmr9SsmIhuS6xIJNSQAP1yfw From: "Phelan, Tom" To: "Pekka Savola" , "Rahul Aggarwal" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Pekka, You wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Rahul Aggarwal wrote: > > > The point is, do we want to state in charter which protocols (at > > > least) should have usage profiles? Do we leave it empty?=20 > Do we rule > > > out some protocols from usage profiles? > >=20 > > Imho this is a detail that can be worked out when the WG=20 > discusses the BFD > > over IPv4 document. Bootstrapping details can be added=20 > where they seem > > necessary. Don't think the charter needs to spell it out.. >=20 > You said "over IPv4" but you meant "over IP", I hope. Any work that=20 > would start with only IPv4 would be completely inappropriate. >=20 > IMHO, this is probably an important point. If we don't know any > protocols we'd like to rule out right now, they should be listed > there. I'm having trouble parsing this. Did you mean "If we know any protocols = ..."? > On the other hand, listing the protocols which we should AT > LEAST work on would be equally useful; for example, the list could be > at least: IS-IS (both IPv4 and IPv6), OSPFv2, OSPFv3, eBGP, {static > routes}. If we're going to have a list of protocols we're going to give = guidelines to, I'd like to see "static routes" taken out of parenthesis. = We seem to have a very router-to-router focus on the uses of BFD here, = but it's also very useful for high-availability host systems to monitor = interface and first hop router status. In these cases the routers = usually have static routes to the hosts, since the hosts tend to not run = routing protocols. Tom Phelan From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 11:03:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02932 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:03:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6XJS-0005Y7-95 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:02:34 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PG2YZf021330 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:02:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6XJS-0005Xx-3b for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:02:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02916 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:02:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XJP-0002mf-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:02:31 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XHT-0002PG-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:00:32 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XGA-0002Il-0A for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:59:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6XBA-0004SC-OX; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6XAK-0004By-2b for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:53:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02455 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XAH-00025i-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:53:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6X9T-00022d-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:52:15 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6X8d-0001vd-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:51:23 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2PFoqu0005194; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:50:52 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.11/8.12.10/Submit) id i2PFoqS1005193; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:50:52 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:50:52 -0800 From: David Meyer To: Pekka Savola Cc: "Phelan, Tom" , Rahul Aggarwal , rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG Message-ID: <20040325155052.GA5141@1-4-5.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 >> > If we're going to have a list of protocols we're going to give >> > guidelines to, I'd like to see "static routes" taken out of >> > parenthesis. We seem to have a very router-to-router focus on the >> > uses of BFD here, but it's also very useful for high-availability >> > host systems to monitor interface and first hop router status. In >> > these cases the routers usually have static routes to the hosts, >> > since the hosts tend to not run routing protocols. >> >> Yes, static routes has a lot of nice areas of applicability. The >> reason why I put it in parentheses was because it is not an >> "adjancency" being formed as such. So if it is to be included, some >> wiggling around in the charter could be useful. >> >> FWIW, another good for static routes is that you would not need to run >> a routing protocol between the ISP and customer if you did this for >> redundancy. Just set up two static routes, with two physical links >> (one set of routes with lower preference), and if BFD notices the >> primary link goes down, it's taken down and you start to use the less >> preferred one automatically. (Today this doesn't work on media which >> don't provide end-to-end link state notifications to the routers, like >> Ethernets.) Exactly. I would say that it should be included if at all possible. In a few of the carriers/ISPs I've worked at in the past I would have loved to have the functionality for statics (which were in common use for singly homed customers). >> Very simple in very simple multi-connection scenarios. No need for >> OSPF or BGP mess in a scenario where you don't need it. Yep, and even in those scenarios BFD can make sense. Dave From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 11:05:09 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03611 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:05:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6XLX-0005qk-9l for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:04:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PG4hhD022480 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:04:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6XLX-0005qV-4X for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:04:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03432 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:04:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XLU-0003I8-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:04:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XJZ-0002or-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:02:42 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XHX-0002Mx-01 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:00:35 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B6X1d-0007cA-Sn for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:44:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6X1c-0001rb-91; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:44:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Wn0-0000Em-2K for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00428 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:28:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Wmx-0000A8-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:28:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Wm6-000042-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:28:06 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6WlA-0007iI-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:27:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2PFQW622295; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:26:32 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:26:32 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: "Phelan, Tom" cc: Rahul Aggarwal , Subject: RE: Proposed BFD WG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Phelan, Tom wrote: > > IMHO, this is probably an important point. If we don't know any > > protocols we'd like to rule out right now, they should be listed > > there. > > I'm having trouble parsing this. Did you mean "If we know any protocols ..."? That's what I meant -- sorry. > > On the other hand, listing the protocols which we should AT > > LEAST work on would be equally useful; for example, the list could be > > at least: IS-IS (both IPv4 and IPv6), OSPFv2, OSPFv3, eBGP, {static > > routes}. > > If we're going to have a list of protocols we're going to give > guidelines to, I'd like to see "static routes" taken out of > parenthesis. We seem to have a very router-to-router focus on the > uses of BFD here, but it's also very useful for high-availability > host systems to monitor interface and first hop router status. In > these cases the routers usually have static routes to the hosts, > since the hosts tend to not run routing protocols. Yes, static routes has a lot of nice areas of applicability. The reason why I put it in parentheses was because it is not an "adjancency" being formed as such. So if it is to be included, some wiggling around in the charter could be useful. FWIW, another good for static routes is that you would not need to run a routing protocol between the ISP and customer if you did this for redundancy. Just set up two static routes, with two physical links (one set of routes with lower preference), and if BFD notices the primary link goes down, it's taken down and you start to use the less preferred one automatically. (Today this doesn't work on media which don't provide end-to-end link state notifications to the routers, like Ethernets.) Very simple in very simple multi-connection scenarios. No need for OSPF or BGP mess in a scenario where you don't need it. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 11:41:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05793 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:41:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Xv5-0001ul-8q for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:41:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PGfR9T007353 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:41:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Xv4-0001uW-Sq for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:41:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05777 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:41:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Xv3-0005ux-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:41:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XuJ-0005sd-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:40:40 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Xti-0005ol-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:40:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Xti-0001kj-Hs; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:40:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6XtT-0001iR-Fg for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05618 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XtS-0005nt-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XsQ-0005jH-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:38:42 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Xrs-0005dq-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:38:08 -0500 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2004 08:44:02 +0000 Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i2PGbXGX029349; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:37:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from tnadeauvmware (che-vpn-cluster-2-1.cisco.com [10.86.242.1]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AHC28893; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:37:31 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" To: "'Rahul Aggarwal'" Cc: "'Alex Zinin'" , Subject: RE: BFD WG charter Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:35:32 -0500 Organization: Cisco Systems Message-ID: <000a01c41287$3520bf40$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-reply-to: <20040324143821.N44009@sapphire.juniper.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE > tunnels) in the charter at this point ? > > I think we need to be careful because other > WGs are already taking this on. I am not aware of any other WG taking on BFD over IP tunnels. > For example, > PWE3's VCCV already includes a BFD mode over pseudo-wires. That is for PWs, not PSN IP/GRE tunnels. Can't the PSN be IP/GRE tunnels? I do get your point, but my point was also that we might want to try to coordinate this with other WGs over which BFD is run, instead of doing it here, if possible. Of course, if we cannot find one, then we should do it here. --Tom From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 14:24:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14877 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:24:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6aSr-0004eP-Dk for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:24:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PJOTd4017877 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:24:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6aSr-0004eG-91 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:24:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14865 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:24:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6aSo-0001gE-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:24:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6aRw-0001eL-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:23:32 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6aRP-0001c1-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:22:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6aRR-0004Yd-KX; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6aQu-0004Wn-0p for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:22:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14758 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:22:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6aQr-0001aC-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:22:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6aPx-0001Xk-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:21:30 -0500 Received: from mail.sonusnet.com ([208.45.178.33] helo=revere.sonusnet.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6aP6-0001TX-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:20:36 -0500 Received: from sonusms1.sonusnet.com (sonusms1 [10.128.32.93]) by revere.sonusnet.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id i2PJK6pI024453 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:20:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonusmail03.sonusnet.com (unverified) by sonusms1.sonusnet.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:20:06 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Proposed BFD WG Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:20:06 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Proposed BFD WG Thread-Index: AcQSfY7I8O6mWfC1Qv262YGMXkvX+QAIIT3A From: "Phelan, Tom" To: "Pekka Savola" Cc: "Rahul Aggarwal" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Pekka, Yes, that static route application is exactly what I meant. Tom Phelan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:27 AM > To: Phelan, Tom > Cc: Rahul Aggarwal; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Proposed BFD WG >=20 >=20 > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Phelan, Tom wrote: > > > IMHO, this is probably an important point. If we don't know any > > > protocols we'd like to rule out right now, they should be listed > > > there. > >=20 > > I'm having trouble parsing this. Did you mean "If we know=20 > any protocols ..."? >=20 > That's what I meant -- sorry. >=20 > > > On the other hand, listing the protocols which we should AT > > > LEAST work on would be equally useful; for example, the=20 > list could be > > > at least: IS-IS (both IPv4 and IPv6), OSPFv2, OSPFv3,=20 > eBGP, {static > > > routes}. > >=20 > > If we're going to have a list of protocols we're going to give > > guidelines to, I'd like to see "static routes" taken out of > > parenthesis. We seem to have a very router-to-router focus on the > > uses of BFD here, but it's also very useful for high-availability > > host systems to monitor interface and first hop router status. In > > these cases the routers usually have static routes to the hosts, > > since the hosts tend to not run routing protocols. >=20 > Yes, static routes has a lot of nice areas of applicability. The > reason why I put it in parentheses was because it is not an > "adjancency" being formed as such. So if it is to be included, some > wiggling around in the charter could be useful. >=20 > FWIW, another good for static routes is that you would not need to run > a routing protocol between the ISP and customer if you did this for > redundancy. Just set up two static routes, with two physical links > (one set of routes with lower preference), and if BFD notices the > primary link goes down, it's taken down and you start to use the less > preferred one automatically. (Today this doesn't work on media which > don't provide end-to-end link state notifications to the routers, like > Ethernets.) >=20 > Very simple in very simple multi-connection scenarios. No need for > OSPF or BGP mess in a scenario where you don't need it. >=20 > --=20 > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings >=20 >=20 From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 16:10:09 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24141 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:10:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6c6f-0000Iw-OT for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:09:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PL9fxG001169 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:09:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6c6f-0000Im-JN for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:09:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24026 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6c6d-0002dT-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:09:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6c3r-00025J-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:06:48 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6c1C-0001bq-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:04:02 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B6c1C-0005Jz-20 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:04:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6c1A-00088a-6g; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:04:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6c0h-00084z-Dt for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:03:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23185 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:03:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6c0f-0001WY-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:03:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6bzY-0001JY-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:02:20 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6byN-00016g-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:01:07 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B6byN-0007CN-4r for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:01:07 +0000 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:01:06 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62i) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1364500361.20040325130106@psg.com> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks- A couple of comments on this thread: 1. I think adding some explanatory text listing the "client" protocols to the work item descriptions wouldn't hurt. 2. An interesting question is how IS-IS should be covered. On the one hand, IS-IS does not use IP encapsulation for its packets and works directly over L2 (Ethernet in our case). On the other hand, I see at least two arguments in favor of covering IS-IS using BFD over IP: - IP liveness detection. Debugging networks where an IS-IS adjacency is up, but the line card gave up on IP for some reason is not fun, and adding some IP awareness at this level to IS-IS seems beneficial. (A question for further study is what to do when IS-IS is used for both v4 and v6.) - Media independence. Instead of defining BFD over every possible L2 encapsulation, simply use IP. Maybe Daves could add something here... I remember seeing an IS-IS section in the bfd-v4v6 document. 3. Regarding the question of static routes and their applicability to the host-router scenarios. While I don't have a problem with using BFD for static route's next hop liveness detection, I don't believe we should be putting the host-router scenarios in the charter. This brings a set of completely different security aspects into play, and they are likely to require different mechanisms than those suitable for router-to-router protocols (see SEND WG). I suggest we focus on the router-router case where we (the RTG area) are experts, and if people want to use the same mechanisms for the host-router case, understanding the risks, etc.--it's their responsibility. -- Alex From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 16:16:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25100 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:16:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cCR-0001Cp-VV for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:15:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PLFdpG004633 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:15:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cCP-0001Ca-R1 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:15:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25059 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:15:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cCK-0003XA-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:15:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cBV-0003TF-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:14:42 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cAq-0003Mp-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:14:00 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B6cAr-0005Xq-7W for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:14:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cAq-0000nk-P1; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:14:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cAM-0000k2-Q4 for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:13:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24740 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:13:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cAL-0003Gy-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:13:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6c8O-0002x1-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:11:29 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6c5u-0002UR-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:08:54 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B6c5u-0008bt-5h; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:08:54 +0000 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:08:53 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62i) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> To: Rahul Aggarwal CC: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD WG charter In-Reply-To: <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> References: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rahul, > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE > tunnels) in the charter at this point ? I see two potential cases for multi-hop BFD operations: 1. IP/GRE tunnels you mention 2. Multiphop protocol adjacencies (e.g. OSPF VLs, iBGP) Assuming you mean 1. above, what do you think should be specified given that tunnels could be considered as logical links from the BFD perspective? (I'm just trying to understand the scope of related work.) Thanks. Alex From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 16:34:05 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25930 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:34:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cTq-0002fU-Ah for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:33:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PLXcxa010255 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:33:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cTq-0002fK-4i for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:33:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25890 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cTo-0004PJ-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:33:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cSt-0004MD-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:32:39 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cSG-0004Ir-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:32:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cSH-0002Sc-TZ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cRo-0002RK-O9 for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:31:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25768 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:31:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cRm-0004I2-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:31:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cQt-0004GF-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:30:35 -0500 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cQO-0004Dq-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:30:04 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.90.247]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2PLTYfX011833 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:29:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from eamrcnt750.exu.ericsson.se ([138.85.133.51]) by eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:27:14 -0600 Received: from ipirklin1.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (147.117.190.16 [147.117.190.16]) by eamrcnt750.exu.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id H13ZLX22; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:29:24 -0600 Received: from kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se [147.117.190.79]) by ipirklin1.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2PLTTgR019345; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:29:29 -0500 Received: (from eudkasi@localhost) by kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (8.11.6/8.11.2) id i2PLTRg19858; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:29:27 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se: eudkasi set sender to kaarthik.sivakumar@ericsson.com using -f To: Alex Zinin Cc: Rahul Aggarwal , rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD WG charter From: Kaarthik Sivakumar In-Reply-To: <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> (Alex Zinin's message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:08:53 -0800") References: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:29:27 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2004 21:27:14.0453 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0F74450:01C412AF] Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >>> "AZ" == Alex Zinin writes: AZ> I see two potential cases for multi-hop BFD operations: AZ> 1. IP/GRE tunnels you mention AZ> 2. Multiphop protocol adjacencies (e.g. OSPF VLs, iBGP) AZ> Assuming you mean 1. above, what do you think should be specified AZ> given that tunnels could be considered as logical links from the AZ> BFD perspective? (I'm just trying to understand the scope of AZ> related work.) How about addressing multi-hop BFD operations for iBGP (and eBGP multihop)? Is there a specific reason why multi-hop for iBGP and OSPF VLs are not considered? (I am a little late in this game, so I dont know all the issues yet; just trying a getting a feel for things here). kaarthik This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you. E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof. From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 16:48:26 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26565 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:48:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6chh-0004S7-UO for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PLluET017104 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6chg-0004RC-K8 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26530 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6chR-0005KC-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cge-0005Gc-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:46:52 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cfp-0005Bp-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:46:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cfp-0004N0-9p; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cfO-0004Lo-Qw for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:45:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26440 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cfM-000585-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:45:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6ceS-00055I-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:44:37 -0500 Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6ce4-00052c-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:44:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C1F80F683; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:44:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21443-07; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:44:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from redback.com (malt.redback.com [155.53.12.41]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D3D80F682; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:44:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from malt (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by redback.com (8.9.3-LCCHA/8.9.3/null redback solaris client) with ESMTP id NAA11106; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:44:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200403252144.NAA11106@redback.com> To: Alex Zinin Cc: Rahul Aggarwal , rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD WG charter In-reply-to: Mail from Alex Zinin dated Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:08:53 PST <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:44:10 -0800 From: Naiming Shen X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Alex, ] Rahul, ] ] > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE ] > tunnels) in the charter at this point ? ] ] I see two potential cases for multi-hop BFD operations: ] ] 1. IP/GRE tunnels you mention ] ] 2. Multiphop protocol adjacencies (e.g. OSPF VLs, iBGP) ] I don't see much benefit to bring protocol multihop adjacencies into BFD, the tunnels in between can be vulnerable to any routing or link problems, to detect the state too fast may not be good. But if we don't want too fast reaction on those tunnels, protocols themselves already have 'keepalives' to handle that. thanks. ] Assuming you mean 1. above, what do you think should be specified given that ] tunnels could be considered as logical links from the BFD perspective? ] (I'm just trying to understand the scope of related work.) ] ] Thanks. ] ] Alex ] ] - Naiming From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 17:18:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27812 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dAn-0001Hl-AO for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PMI1JD004935 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dAn-0001HW-5R for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27715 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:17:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dAk-0007Db-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:17:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d8b-0006xR-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:15:46 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d8E-0006tn-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:15:22 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B6d66-0006aB-68 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:13:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6d65-0008QO-3J; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:13:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6d5R-0008Nk-G0 for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:12:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27580 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:12:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d5P-0006oV-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:12:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d4R-0006nR-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:11:28 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d4D-0006mR-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:11:13 -0500 Received: from [172.16.12.139] (pcp04161648pcs.sntafe01.nm.comcast.net[68.35.42.169]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20040325221042015007tqn0e>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:10:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <41063AFB-7EA9-11D8-9FF3-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Zinin , Rahul Aggarwal , rtg-bfd@ietf.org From: Dave Katz Subject: Re: BFD WG charter Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:10:41 -0800 To: Kaarthik Sivakumar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mar 25, 2004, at 1:29 PM, Kaarthik Sivakumar wrote: > How about addressing multi-hop BFD operations for iBGP (and eBGP > multihop)? Is there a specific reason why multi-hop for iBGP and OSPF > VLs are not considered? (I am a little late in this game, so I dont > know all the issues yet; just trying a getting a feel for things > here). > Aside from the crawl-before-you-walk aspect, the security issue has to be dealt with before multihop can be used. --Dave From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 17:18:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27839 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dAs-0001II-Rc for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PMI6BZ004968 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dAs-0001I2-Ng for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27732 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dAq-0007El-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d8k-0006z0-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:15:54 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d8G-0006tn-03 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:15:25 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B6d41-0006Uo-6C for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:11:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6d41-0008LG-4i; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:11:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6d3X-0008KY-8i for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:10:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27553 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d3V-0006m4-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:10:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d2d-0006ku-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:09:36 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d2I-0006j2-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:09:14 -0500 Received: from [172.16.12.139] (pcp04161648pcs.sntafe01.nm.comcast.net[68.35.42.169]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2004032522084401300rkpice>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:08:45 +0000 In-Reply-To: <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> References: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, Rahul Aggarwal From: Dave Katz Subject: Re: BFD WG charter Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:08:42 -0800 To: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mar 25, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Alex Zinin wrote: > 1. IP/GRE tunnels you mention > > 2. Multiphop protocol adjacencies (e.g. OSPF VLs, iBGP) > > Assuming you mean 1. above, what do you think should be specified > given that > tunnels could be considered as logical links from the BFD perspective? > (I'm just trying to understand the scope of related work.) > Yes, running BFD over tunnels which are realized as virtual interfaces falls out of the one-hop draft. However, there may be further specification desired. For example, the demand mode stuff was put in to match the functionality of what was being proposed for IPsec, where high fan-in to a single box was apparently felt to be troublesome enough to avoid periodic packet transmission. Of course, you can stand this argument on its head and say that if you have very high real (or more likely channelized) interface counts, you may want to use demand mode anyhow. All this dances around how one should specify the applications of BFD, and I'm not too clear on the best way to do that. --Dave From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 17:18:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27942 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dB5-0001Ji-J5 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PMIJbG005056 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dB5-0001JN-BW for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27777 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dB1-0007GW-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:18:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d9S-000724-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:16:38 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d8K-0006tn-03 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:15:28 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B6czC-0006Lo-Bo for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:06:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6czB-0007F3-1v; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6cyf-0007Bv-PV for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:05:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27440 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:05:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cyd-0006aZ-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:05:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cxi-0006YZ-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:04:31 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6cx4-0006UV-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:03:50 -0500 Received: from [172.16.12.139] (pcp04161648pcs.sntafe01.nm.comcast.net[68.35.42.169]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20040325220314015007tamte>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:03:15 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1364500361.20040325130106@psg.com> References: <1364500361.20040325130106@psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <34E52CBE-7EA8-11D8-9FF3-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org From: Dave Katz Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:03:11 -0800 To: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mar 25, 2004, at 1:01 PM, Alex Zinin wrote: > 2. An interesting question is how IS-IS should be covered. On the one > hand, IS-IS does not use IP encapsulation for its packets and > works > directly over L2 (Ethernet in our case). Keep in mind that the stated purpose of BFD is to demonstrate data protocol liveness. In some sense the fact that it can be used to trigger routing protocol failover is coincidental. If implemented in the forwarding plane, it can be used in conjunction with Graceless Restart to decide whether to declare a fractured topology in the IGP. The interaction with IS-IS is interesting in a number of ways, the primary being that it supports multiple network protocols. The latest (almost published) draft addresses this by saying that in the case of congruent topologies a BFD failure should cause adjacency teardown, whereas in the case of independent topologies the edge corresponding to the failing protocol should be removed from the graph. The purpose of running BFD over L2 is to do datalink liveness, talking to switches. One pragmatic application is to approximate subnet reachability by having the router chatting BFD with the switch (and no longer announcing the subnet in the IGP when the BFD session goes down.) It could also be used as a liveness protocol in the switching world, but that's even further outside the WG scope, methinks. --Dave From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 17:22:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28129 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:22:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dEH-0001fL-BO for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:21:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PMLbA1006397 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:21:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dEH-0001f6-6j for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:21:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28107 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:21:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dEE-0007aW-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:21:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dDS-0007Xr-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:20:47 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dCi-0007UJ-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:20:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dCj-0001Wo-Sv; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:20:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dBn-0001Ry-VJ for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:19:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28042 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:19:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dBl-0007Oh-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:19:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dAi-0007DJ-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:17:58 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6d8a-0006tm-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:15:45 -0500 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i2PMFFBm043951; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:15:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from sapphire.juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2PMFFJ66057; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:15:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) Received: from localhost (rahul@localhost) by sapphire.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i2PMFFT64003; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:15:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net) X-Authentication-Warning: sapphire.juniper.net: rahul owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:15:15 -0800 (PST) From: Rahul Aggarwal To: Alex Zinin cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: BFD WG charter In-Reply-To: <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> Message-ID: <20040325134955.L32042@sapphire.juniper.net> References: <8020122204.20040322153842@psg.com> <20040324113340.Q44009@sapphire.juniper.net> <744967442.20040325130853@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Alex, On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Alex Zinin wrote: > Rahul, > > > Should we include BFD over multi-hop IPv4/IPv6 adjacencies (eg. IP/GRE > > tunnels) in the charter at this point ? > > I see two potential cases for multi-hop BFD operations: > > 1. IP/GRE tunnels you mention > > 2. Multiphop protocol adjacencies (e.g. OSPF VLs, iBGP) > > Assuming you mean 1. above, what do you think should be specified given that > tunnels could be considered as logical links from the BFD perspective? > (I'm just trying to understand the scope of related work.) > I was implying 1. And as you mention from a BFD perspective most of the details are same as the single hop IP case and the single hop IP draft will cover most of it. Tunnel encap will be used: (IP or IP + GRE or IP + IPSec) to encapsulate BFD packets. Bootstrapping will be based on tunnel configuration or maybe discovering a tunnel endpoint: very much application specific. So the scope of the work is probably quite small. I wanted to ensure that it alligns with the charter now or at some point in the future. The only thing that may require looking at further is BFD for IPsec... Thanks, rahul > Thanks. > > Alex > > > From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 17:32:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28578 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:32:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dOr-0002yq-3C for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:32:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PMWXpQ011456 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:32:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dOq-0002yh-U9 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:32:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28574 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:32:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dOo-0000Q5-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:32:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dNv-0000ON-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:31:36 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dNM-0000ME-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:31:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dNN-0002wu-Fm; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dN8-0002v1-10 for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:30:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28528 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:30:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dN5-0000Lv-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:30:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dMO-0000IW-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:30:01 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dLi-0000DZ-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:29:18 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2004 14:35:17 +0000 Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i2PMSjUe028774; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:28:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from tnadeauvmware (che-vpn-cluster-2-1.cisco.com [10.86.242.1]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AHC67044; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:28:44 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" To: "'Dave Katz'" , "'Alex Zinin'" Cc: Subject: RE: Proposed BFD WG Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:26:49 -0500 Organization: Cisco Systems Message-ID: <005d01c412b8$44a5de60$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-reply-to: <34E52CBE-7EA8-11D8-9FF3-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Dave Katz > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:03 PM > To: Alex Zinin > Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG > > > > On Mar 25, 2004, at 1:01 PM, Alex Zinin wrote: > > > 2. An interesting question is how IS-IS should be > covered. On the one > > hand, IS-IS does not use IP encapsulation for its packets and > > works > > directly over L2 (Ethernet in our case). > > Keep in mind that the stated purpose of BFD is to demonstrate data > protocol liveness. In some sense the fact that it can be used to > trigger routing protocol failover is coincidental. > > If implemented in the forwarding plane, it can be used in conjunction > with Graceless Restart to decide whether to declare a fractured > topology in the IGP. > > The interaction with IS-IS is interesting in a number of ways, the > primary being that it supports multiple network protocols. > The latest > (almost published) draft addresses this by saying that in the case of > congruent topologies a BFD failure should cause adjacency teardown, > whereas in the case of independent topologies the edge > corresponding to > the failing protocol should be removed from the graph. > > The purpose of running BFD over L2 is to do datalink > liveness, talking to switches. One pragmatic application is to approximate subnet > reachability by having the router chatting BFD with the > switch (and no longer announcing the subnet in the IGP when the BFD session goes > down.) It could also be used as a liveness protocol in the switching > world, but that's even further outside the WG scope, methinks. One area doing BFD for L2 potentially collides with is ongoing work the IEEE. In particular, there is a group working on OAM mechanisms for Enet. --Tom From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 17:44:17 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29087 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dZn-0003kK-4Q for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:43:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PMhpbA014389 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:43:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dZm-0003k0-5d for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:43:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29066 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:43:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dZj-00014W-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:43:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dYt-0000yw-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:42:56 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dXy-0000u6-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:41:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dY0-0003eZ-EN; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dXa-0003ch-Qg for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:41:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28908 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:41:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dXY-0000rF-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:41:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dWd-0000nb-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:40:35 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dW3-0000js-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:39:59 -0500 Received: from [172.16.12.139] (pcp04161648pcs.sntafe01.nm.comcast.net[68.35.42.169]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <20040325223929012007djgae>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:39:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: <005d01c412b8$44a5de60$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> References: <005d01c412b8$44a5de60$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <45222071-7EAD-11D8-9FF3-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "'Alex Zinin'" , From: Dave Katz Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:39:26 -0800 To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mar 25, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: > > One area doing BFD for L2 potentially collides with is ongoing > work the IEEE. In particular, there is a group working on OAM > mechanisms for Enet. Yes, we're hoping BFD survives the collision. ;-) Dward has moles in the IEEE; perhaps he can fill us in as to how things are going there. From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 25 18:07:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00563 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:07:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dw1-0008WL-8C for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:06:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2PN6ncS032723 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:06:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dw0-0008Vh-JJ for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:06:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00491 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dvx-0002XF-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:06:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dv4-0002SI-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:05:50 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6duH-0002Ne-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:05:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6duH-0007sf-QK; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:05:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6dtv-0007lv-Ki for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:04:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00238 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dts-0002LM-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:04:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dt4-0002IK-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:03:47 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6dsO-0002Bg-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:03:04 -0500 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2004 15:07:53 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (cfcentral.cisco.com [64.101.210.32]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i2PN2VGX003064; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:02:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from wardd@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id RAA26196; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:02:29 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:02:29 -0600 From: David Ward To: Dave Katz Cc: tnadeau@cisco.com, "'Alex Zinin'" , rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG Message-ID: <20040325170229.Z9332@cfcentral.cisco.com> References: <005d01c412b8$44a5de60$81da10ac@tnadeauvmware> <45222071-7EAD-11D8-9FF3-000A95A55D88@juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <45222071-7EAD-11D8-9FF3-000A95A55D88@juniper.net>; from dkatz@juniper.net on Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:39:26PM -0800 Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Baited out of my cave ..... Well, things are not progressing very quickly. The BFDoE draft is coming together but, it is not talking w/ the 802.3ah (EFM folks that are working on enet OAM) group yet. The EFM OAM folks are working on a slow protocol that is to accomplish a lot more than simple failure detection. Also, they are working to change PHYs, which we are not. Hoping that we can all get along :-) -DWard On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:39:26PM -0800, Dave Katz wrote: > > On Mar 25, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: > > > > One area doing BFD for L2 potentially collides with is ongoing > > work the IEEE. In particular, there is a group working on OAM > > mechanisms for Enet. > > Yes, we're hoping BFD survives the collision. ;-) Dward has moles in > the IEEE; perhaps he can fill us in as to how things are going there. > From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 26 02:00:21 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20214 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 02:00:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6lJo-0007Cf-Te for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:59:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2Q6xq0E027683 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:59:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6lJo-0007CQ-Ne for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:59:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19922 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:59:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6lJl-00054K-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:59:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6lIr-00050P-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:58:54 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6lHz-0004w9-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:57:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6lI0-00075G-Ex; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:58:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6lHp-00074Y-ON for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:57:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19815 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:57:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6lHm-0004u3-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:57:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6lGp-0004pR-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:56:47 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6lFr-0004if-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:55:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2Q6tE103263; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:55:15 +0200 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:55:14 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Alex Zinin cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed BFD WG In-Reply-To: <1364500361.20040325130106@psg.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Alex Zinin wrote: > 3. Regarding the question of static routes and their applicability to the > host-router scenarios. While I don't have a problem with using BFD for > static route's next hop liveness detection, [...] Just to make sure it's clear -- static routes are very much applicable to router-router scenarios as well, practically between administrative domains (or possibly stub networks). Such links are typically used in a point-to-point fashion (i.e., even if the media was not p-t-p, there are only two boxes on the link). The difference with router-host scenarios is that there the link is typically shared between the others, and is considered less secure. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 30 12:10:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00175 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:10:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B8Mk6-000284-Vq for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:09:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2UH9cnb008177 for rtg-bfd-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:09:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B8Mk6-00027h-Pg for rtg-bfd-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:09:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00157 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B8Mk5-0004WF-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:09:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B8Mj8-0004Mf-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:08:39 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B8Mid-0004DU-00 for rtg-bfd-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:08:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B8MWv-00018t-8h; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B8MVx-00016S-DW for rtg-bfd@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:55:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28438 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:54:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B8MVw-00017n-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:55:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B8MUT-0000mP-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:53:29 -0500 Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B8MTu-0000dS-00 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:52:54 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.90.247]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2UGqHLc003424 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:52:17 -0600 (CST) Received: from eamrcnt750.exu.ericsson.se ([138.85.133.51]) by eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:49:53 -0600 Received: from ipirklin1.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (147.117.190.16 [147.117.190.16]) by eamrcnt750.exu.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id HXC3MDQR; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:52:06 -0600 Received: from kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se [147.117.190.79]) by ipirklin1.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2UGqIgR000773 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:52:18 -0500 Received: (from eudkasi@localhost) by kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se (8.11.6/8.11.2) id i2UGqHe15440; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:52:17 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: kaarthik-linuxpc.ipi.us.am.ericsson.se: eudkasi set sender to kaarthik.sivakumar@ericsson.com using -f To: BFD Group Subject: IPR on BFD From: Kaarthik Sivakumar Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:52:17 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2004 16:49:53.0437 (UTC) FILETIME=[06367CD0:01C41677] Sender: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi The BFD draft says in the "IPR Notice" section that IETF has been notified of a IPR claimed in the draft, but this notice is missing in the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Notices" at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html. Can we get more information from the authors on the IPR implications for BFD? Thanks. kaarthik This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you. E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.