From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 25 07:41:19 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EfctD-0006jz-JH; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:41:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EfctC-0006jn-CG for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:41:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19940 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:40:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.200.115]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EfdCR-0004ki-Ss for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:01:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 44429 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Nov 2005 12:41:07 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=R3Nb+VjFYO5xsgkOSra4w/1LOG3SgwjZSUupIWE73P+4MSnQ2mWfZ2J+U/9bndzCypBwYCF/OR+VhjqDy9PECDk1wHw+hzeXj7kNYzVQA62Ae/FTtpiVJSMhlLBLYnEiO1QxgSFk29V0qF4YIu1v04dpk5WRXk7l0XZ0ojOI2ns= ; Message-ID: <20051125124107.44427.qmail@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [59.144.1.153] by web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:41:06 PST Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:41:06 -0800 (PST) From: Tonuka SinhaRay To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Regarding Min. value of Desired Min. Tx Interval and Required Min. Rx. Interval X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Sir/Madam, In the draft "draft-ietf-bfd-base-03.txt" Page 26 and 27 , it says that bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval must be initialised to a value of at least one second (1,000,000 microseconds). Does this mean that bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval should be always greater or equal to 1 sec? But, in the same draft , Section 6.7.3 (paragraph 6), it is specified that if bfd.SessionState is not Up, the system MUST set bfd.DesiredMInTxInterval to a value not less than one second. Can someone please clarify what is min. value of Desired Min Tx Interval and Required Min. Rx Interval? Is the Min. values for Desired Min. Tx Interval and required Min. Rx. Interval different when session is Down/AdminDown/Init from when the session is up? Thank you in Advance, With Regards, Tonuka __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 25 10:07:09 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EffAL-000736-4s; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:07:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EffAJ-000725-RM for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:07:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05333 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:06:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EffTK-0001bO-LO for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:26:51 -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 jAPF6dBm046739; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:06:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) Received: from [172.23.1.78] ([172.23.1.78]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id jAPF6c548657; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:06:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) In-Reply-To: <20051125124107.44427.qmail@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051125124107.44427.qmail@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dave Katz Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:06:32 -0800 To: Tonuka SinhaRay X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Regarding Min. value of Desired Min. Tx Interval and Required Min. Rx. Interval X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org On Nov 25, 2005, at 4:41 AM, Tonuka SinhaRay wrote: > > Sir/Madam, > > In the draft "draft-ietf-bfd-base-03.txt" Page 26 > and 27 , it says that bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval must be > initialised to a value of at least one second > (1,000,000 microseconds). Does this mean that > bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval should be always greater or > equal to 1 sec? No, just that the value must be at least one second when the session is first created. > > But, in the same draft , Section 6.7.3 (paragraph 6), > it is specified that if bfd.SessionState is not Up, > the system MUST set bfd.DesiredMInTxInterval to a > value not less than one second. > > Can someone please clarify what is min. value of > Desired Min Tx Interval > and Required Min. Rx Interval? There is no minimum (well, one microsecond.) MinTx reflects the sender's desire to transmit rapidly; MinRx reflects the receiver's desire to receive slowly. Thus the receiver always places a lower bound on the interval. > Is the Min. values for Desired Min. Tx Interval and > required Min. Rx. Interval > different when session is Down/AdminDown/Init from > when the session is up? As you quote above, MinTx must be at least one second when the session isn't up. The point of this whole exercise is to give each system unilateral control over the maximum transmission rate in both directions. When a session is first starting up, however, each system sends slowly because it does not know the requirements of the other system (which can't be guaranteed until the session is up.) For that matter, perhaps only one system is configured to use BFD, and the session may never come up, so the bandwidth consumption needs to be limited. --Dave > > Thank you in Advance, > With Regards, > Tonuka > > > > __________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 25 12:54:01 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Efhlo-0006Sp-UZ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Efhlo-0006Sk-1u for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:54:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25267 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:53:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from adsl-66-120-207-101.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net ([66.120.207.101] helo=coffee.rawdofmt.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Efi55-0007ly-2V for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:13:57 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coffee.rawdofmt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3A73DCC8B; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:53:41 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Christian Hopps Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:53:39 -0800 To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Status on draft-chopps-isis-bfd-tlv-00.txt X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org I would like to propose making draft-chopps-isis-bfd-tlv-00.txt a WG document. This was mentioned back at IETF 62 (although I think the draft was not present yet :); however, I don't recall if it has been brought up on the list or not. Chris. From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Sat Nov 26 00:07:29 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EfsHZ-0004va-AN; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:07:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EfsHX-0004vV-Oe for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:07:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA27517 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from web30513.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.201.241]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Efsaw-0003qt-Mx for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:27:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 82457 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Nov 2005 05:07:16 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jZ+2feO+2iIoP3viFvTb4pINSHeuFUmSK96CG8zYxnuYqDxEUc5ccBjI/xUTAIY39aKOfWkmMJfuwVosM678ebwkkyMsGnkPrfIRavaTZFNqIsbQNA5ffcwV42GU7MUq4VKsRx41oVxIMOUZzthnMi3pJ8xa33Wc+3H+mdpMe7A= ; Message-ID: <20051126050716.82455.qmail@web30513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [59.144.1.153] by web30513.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:07:16 PST Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:07:16 -0800 (PST) From: Tonuka SinhaRay To: Dave Katz In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6e922792024732fb1bb6f346e63517e4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Regarding Min. value of Desired Min. Tx Interval and Required Min. Rx. Interval X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Thank you Dave, One more clarification please? By up, Does it mean that When the session is down or init or admin down , the min. Tx interval should be min. 1 sec? But when the session state is up, Is the max. value the Desired min. Tx. interval 1 sec? With Regards, Tonuka --- Dave Katz wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2005, at 4:41 AM, Tonuka SinhaRay wrote: > > > > > Sir/Madam, > > > > In the draft "draft-ietf-bfd-base-03.txt" Page > 26 > > and 27 , it says that bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval > must be > > initialised to a value of at least one second > > (1,000,000 microseconds). Does this mean that > > bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval should be always greater > or > > equal to 1 sec? > > No, just that the value must be at least one second > when the session > is first created. > > > > > But, in the same draft , Section 6.7.3 (paragraph > 6), > > it is specified that if bfd.SessionState is not > Up, > > the system MUST set bfd.DesiredMInTxInterval to a > > value not less than one second. > > > > Can someone please clarify what is min. value of > > Desired Min Tx Interval > > and Required Min. Rx Interval? > > There is no minimum (well, one microsecond.) MinTx > reflects the > sender's desire to transmit rapidly; MinRx reflects > the receiver's > desire to receive slowly. Thus the receiver always > places a lower > bound on the interval. > > > Is the Min. values for Desired Min. Tx Interval > and > > required Min. Rx. Interval > > different when session is Down/AdminDown/Init from > > when the session is up? > > As you quote above, MinTx must be at least one > second when the > session isn't up. > > The point of this whole exercise is to give each > system unilateral > control over the maximum transmission rate in both > directions. When > a session is first starting up, however, each system > sends slowly > because it does not know the requirements of the > other system (which > can't be guaranteed until the session is up.) For > that matter, > perhaps only one system is configured to use BFD, > and the session may > never come up, so the bandwidth consumption needs to > be limited. > > --Dave > > > > > Thank you in Advance, > > With Regards, > > Tonuka > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home > page! > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Sat Nov 26 00:12:13 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EfsM9-0006df-IT; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:12:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EfsM7-0006da-SR for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:12:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA27864 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:11:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EfsfW-0003ya-GW for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:32:14 -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 jAQ5C1Bm050853; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:12:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) Received: from [172.23.1.78] ([172.23.1.78]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id jAQ5C1519066; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:12:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) In-Reply-To: <20051126050716.82455.qmail@web30513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051126050716.82455.qmail@web30513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9D8B6EB2-17F4-4478-99DB-90AA2077DBAD@juniper.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dave Katz Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:11:59 -0800 To: Tonuka SinhaRay X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5ebbf074524e58e662bc8209a6235027 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Regarding Min. value of Desired Min. Tx Interval and Required Min. Rx. Interval X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org On Nov 25, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Tonuka SinhaRay wrote: > Thank you Dave, > One more clarification please? > By up, Does it mean that When the session is down or > init or admin down , the min. Tx interval should be > min. 1 sec? > But when the session state is up, Is the max. value > the Desired min. Tx. interval 1 sec? No, it could be any value, including greater, though one might expect that if you wanted to run at, say, 10 seconds when up, that you would start with a value that large or larger before the session came up. --Dave > > With Regards, > Tonuka > --- Dave Katz wrote: > >> >> On Nov 25, 2005, at 4:41 AM, Tonuka SinhaRay wrote: >> >>> >>> Sir/Madam, >>> >>> In the draft "draft-ietf-bfd-base-03.txt" Page >> 26 >>> and 27 , it says that bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval >> must be >>> initialised to a value of at least one second >>> (1,000,000 microseconds). Does this mean that >>> bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval should be always greater >> or >>> equal to 1 sec? >> >> No, just that the value must be at least one second >> when the session >> is first created. >> >>> >>> But, in the same draft , Section 6.7.3 (paragraph >> 6), >>> it is specified that if bfd.SessionState is not >> Up, >>> the system MUST set bfd.DesiredMInTxInterval to a >>> value not less than one second. >>> >>> Can someone please clarify what is min. value of >>> Desired Min Tx Interval >>> and Required Min. Rx Interval? >> >> There is no minimum (well, one microsecond.) MinTx >> reflects the >> sender's desire to transmit rapidly; MinRx reflects >> the receiver's >> desire to receive slowly. Thus the receiver always >> places a lower >> bound on the interval. >> >>> Is the Min. values for Desired Min. Tx Interval >> and >>> required Min. Rx. Interval >>> different when session is Down/AdminDown/Init from >>> when the session is up? >> >> As you quote above, MinTx must be at least one >> second when the >> session isn't up. >> >> The point of this whole exercise is to give each >> system unilateral >> control over the maximum transmission rate in both >> directions. When >> a session is first starting up, however, each system >> sends slowly >> because it does not know the requirements of the >> other system (which >> can't be guaranteed until the session is up.) For >> that matter, >> perhaps only one system is configured to use BFD, >> and the session may >> never come up, so the bandwidth consumption needs to >> be limited. >> >> --Dave >> >>> >>> Thank you in Advance, >>> With Regards, >>> Tonuka >>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________ >>> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home >> page! >>> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >>> >> >> > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Music Unlimited > Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ > From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Sat Nov 26 03:21:28 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EfvJI-00071h-9W; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:21:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EfvJF-000710-2z for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:21:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13624 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:20:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.55] helo=huawei.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Efvce-0000iz-JW for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:41:30 -0500 Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IQJ001PRZ9E7Y@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:22:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxml01-in ([172.24.1.3]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IQJ00CXVZ9E4H@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:22:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from saravanapc ([10.110.102.116]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IQJ00KNKZMJJQ@szxml01-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:30:20 +0800 (CST) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:17:01 +0800 From: Saravana Kumar In-reply-to: To: "'Christian Hopps'" Message-id: <000001c5f261$c76435b0$74666e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: RE: Status on draft-chopps-isis-bfd-tlv-00.txt X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Chris, I went through the draft and I think it would be an useful addition to ISIS. However I have a couple of suggestions to add to the draft. - the behaviour in a multi topology scenario needs to be specified. - the new TLV should be able to specify the BFD capability for different data protocols. This would be useful if some implementation supports BFD for one particular protocol only. Thanks, Saravana -----Original Message----- From: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 1:54 AM To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Status on draft-chopps-isis-bfd-tlv-00.txt I would like to propose making draft-chopps-isis-bfd-tlv-00.txt a WG document. This was mentioned back at IETF 62 (although I think the draft was not present yet :); however, I don't recall if it has been brought up on the list or not. Chris. From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 28 13:52:35 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ego79-0005wp-6N; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:52:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ego77-0005tz-Ow for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:52:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19761 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EgoQz-00029s-AG for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:13:06 -0500 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2005 10:52:12 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,385,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="371069289:sNHT805008826" Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jASIq3eW021472; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:52:03 -0800 Received: from [171.71.139.200] ([171.68.225.134]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:52:02 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.6.040913.0 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:52:15 -0600 From: David Ward To: Saravana Kumar , "'Christian Hopps'" , David Ward , Dave Katz Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000001c5f261$c76435b0$74666e0a@china.huawei.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2005 18:52:02.0643 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1EA9230:01C5F44C] X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Re: Status on draft-chopps-isis-bfd-tlv-00.txt X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Should this be in the ISIS WG since ISIS bits are changing? I think so as no BFD bits are changing. I will contact the ISIS WG chairs. -DWard On 11/26/05 2:17 AM, "Saravana Kumar" wrote: > Chris, > > I went through the draft and I think it would be an useful addition to > ISIS. However I have a couple of suggestions to add to the draft. > > - the behaviour in a multi topology scenario needs to be specified. > - the new TLV should be able to specify the BFD capability for > different data protocols. This would be useful if some implementation > supports BFD for one particular protocol only. > > Thanks, > Saravana > > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 1:54 AM > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Status on draft-chopps-isis-bfd-tlv-00.txt > > > I would like to propose making draft-chopps-isis-bfd-tlv-00.txt a WG > document. > > This was mentioned back at IETF 62 (although I think the draft was > not present yet :); however, I don't recall if it has been brought up > on the list or not. > > Chris. >