From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 4 12:30:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DCC3A6B23; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:30:35 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51FC28C0E2 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:30:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56B9evI1jXDT for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (mu-out-0910.google.com [209.85.134.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26253A6A0C for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:30:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id w1so3619905mue.9 for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:30:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=dnM64B/yObbmpHWWk40BfpTNQ43yFzAthy7OJB+ti04=; b=c+YntoOmdak7ri5vtWprL5soeigCPFV3Wo8c+BhqvTFzo828oxVvyQrXQ1QivkHrQm K+jl3hBEMgr1DDLXoYGWAgRdfG4uNSqKvwBtlbk7jO/C+VI3t1FmqJDMgExGN8Lm9WQg gJmApWdIlrhyRpDuPS2nYLv4T2oQkloCrNmzU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=PRRuvVg7orF1h1LF6k2onWoVSfCVuv3sx9qAEjh+7/MfJcKMlKvpa9xFM6n0DDTKAo lr33u8tKT5GTDQJWomchy1F/TFQ/i5FKvYJybJZQxQrgcPXPWeCp332hlgbKKE1UtR8q bJ0+JnKMpZ6ZJOJW4T2z7xKDGRzKBiPC8Hy9M= Received: by 10.180.241.8 with SMTP id o8mr5165993bkh.102.1228422626853; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:30:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.205.7 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:30:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <77ead0ec0812041230w6f9e0172i19eb8a08437fd023@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:30:26 -0800 From: "Vishwas Manral" To: "David Ward" , "Dave Katz" Subject: BFD UDP ports In-Reply-To: <77ead0ec0812041228q7aa8fc1cla2810cc3fa530e3d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <77ead0ec0812041228q7aa8fc1cla2810cc3fa530e3d@mail.gmail.com> Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Hi I had a few doubts about BFD UDP ports. 1. I am a bit confused about using the same BFD destination port for IPv4 and IPv6. Shouldn't we have different port numbers? I realized that even RIP which uses UDP uses different ports for IPv4 and IPv6. Using the same port can be an issue in a few heavily used OS. Has anyone implemented BFD for IPv6? 2. As BFD source port is not used for packet replies and as the Source address/ ifindex may be a unique identifier for a source, do we need not have the condition which states "source port number SHOULD be unique among all BFD sessions on the system". Can we downgrade this condition to a may? Thanks, Vishwas From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 4 14:53:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5163A6937; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:53:26 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 711883A6937 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:53:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.968 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.631, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3211XUvenVfi for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com (exprod7og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D6A3A680E for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:53:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob113.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSThfWoNj4NfMO6a/57hE7Trq2gjHRCwj@postini.com; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:53:19 PST Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.311.2; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:51:16 -0800 Received: from emailcorp3.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.13]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:51:16 -0800 Received: from 172.23.8.178 ([172.23.8.178]) by emailcorp3.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.13]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:51:15 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.10.0.080409 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:51:15 -0800 Subject: Re: BFD UDP ports From: Nitin Bahadur To: Vishwas Manral , David Ward , Dave Katz Message-ID: Thread-Topic: BFD UDP ports Thread-Index: AclWYs/Od2WgBvzdFUW5hr8lHzADpQ== In-Reply-To: <77ead0ec0812041230w6f9e0172i19eb8a08437fd023@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2008 22:51:16.0450 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0AC3420:01C95662] Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org On 12/4/08 12:30 PM, "Vishwas Manral" wrote: > Hi > > 1. I am a bit confused about using the same BFD destination port for > IPv4 and IPv6. Shouldn't we have different port numbers? I realized > that even RIP which uses UDP uses different ports for IPv4 and IPv6. > Using the same port can be an issue in a few heavily used OS. Has > anyone implemented BFD for IPv6? Using the same port should be for v4 & v6 should be fine. I know of at least 1 implementation ;-) Thanks Nitin From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 4 23:45:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28AB3A6C0B; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:45:39 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBF03A6C09 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:45:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GydlIxJs5SuY for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:45:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8E83A6C06 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:45:37 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,720,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="121068509" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2008 07:45:31 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB57jVA9014083; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:45:31 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB57jVnC029439; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:45:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22c.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.47]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:45:31 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: BFD UDP ports Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:43:23 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BFD UDP ports Thread-Index: AclWYs/Od2WgBvzdFUW5hr8lHzADpQARdWpA References: <77ead0ec0812041230w6f9e0172i19eb8a08437fd023@mail.gmail.com> From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "Nitin Bahadur" , "Vishwas Manral" , "David Ward" , "Dave Katz" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2008 07:45:31.0214 (UTC) FILETIME=[72CD06E0:01C956AD] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1553; t=1228463131; x=1229327131; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=nobo@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Nobo=20Akiya=20(nobo)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20BFD=20UDP=20ports |Sender:=20; bh=8Lg3logMEQmedQEsx49+EqDONBFJ0D49eJI9rxHcKZI=; b=mqAxpzcKEFyvI7PTILjpvY0wYwu7YXzuC+R5lR4xoHwmVIY33nnjyCZOCK 6Dq+15TKe2LNG+GSJzSpVM3rJ86ebuK16H5UMJy2RQuTlyo3iGFA7XKP/U7G JVXqyQZzNN; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=nobo@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Hello Vishwas, Nitin. >=20 > On 12/4/08 12:30 PM, "Vishwas Manral" wrote: >=20 > > Hi > >=20 > > 1. I am a bit confused about using the same BFD destination port for > > IPv4 and IPv6. Shouldn't we have different port numbers? I realized=20 > > that even RIP which uses UDP uses different ports for IPv4 and IPv6. > > Using the same port can be an issue in a few heavily used OS. Has=20 > > anyone implemented BFD for IPv6? >=20 > Using the same port should be for v4 & v6 should be fine. I=20 > know of at least > 1 implementation ;-) >=20 > Thanks > Nitin >=20 I know of another implementation which same dest port is used for v4 & v6 =3D) > 2. As BFD source port is not used for packet replies and as=20 > the Source address/ ifindex may be a unique identifier for a=20 > source, do we need not have the condition which states=20 > "source port number SHOULD be unique among all BFD sessions=20 > on the system". Can we downgrade this condition to a may? I tripped over this requirement as well, and I agree that measurement of the wording strength is a bit confusing. One soft correction on your statement is that source port MAY be used as a demultiplexing *aid*. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-08 Sec4.1: An implementation MAY use the UDP port source number to aid in demultiplexing incoming BFD Control packets, but ultimately the mechanisms in [BFD] MUST be used to demultiplex incoming packets to the proper session. Thanx, Nobo From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 09:40:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FEC3A6872; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:40:00 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EE23A679F for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:39:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id erSvfg5-O-En for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DFA3A6872 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:39:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so57549fga.41 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:39:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=lLy2pfj/ZtTR3qrSlFCqLtlLfR23U5+oB0DCGcrWPNo=; b=deHL6LutrgWX8xD4rnC82/+cioWYBO7nkFlZoQ4rA4MZHBWoLkOmiz7+yz8SVY6dfs ffV6LW5PzETP6Ogf6LCxrAnLPnUZeRZxbinRqts0t6wvnIVMEXm+S3x0+2yX41Zr97Q7 LMaRxnbgSugKtMfGRgBkrSamwENOZa6h1d1Pw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=T7cEkC6M4uJ6kV/pGmqhbN1DJe4+A67vIgF8nEPvmhA2JupeEbEGFiQs/PkiGnuHYG oX3tUwCThS/8FDkwMu+ZZwVeB2LaMV09uEoso2jABI+VCSATwImVIx4hXHvnc2ov1zUX mErFuT8dwMQ3rcArV5ei5b1Vyt75N+ZsIYsyw= Received: by 10.180.229.17 with SMTP id b17mr72459bkh.156.1228498791930; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:39:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.205.7 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:39:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <77ead0ec0812050939q837b20fh54105e245e7e0fb6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:39:51 -0800 From: "Vishwas Manral" To: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" Subject: Re: BFD UDP ports In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <77ead0ec0812041230w6f9e0172i19eb8a08437fd023@mail.gmail.com> Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, David Ward , Dave Katz X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Hi Nitin/ Nobo, Thanks for your replies. So I guess we will have to use the same port for IPv4 and IPv6 then, hack the OS or whatever other way. Nobo, I agree we should make the recomendation as a MAY instead of a may as I had suggested. Another question I had in mind was regarding the use of the "echo mode". Should we allow parallel sending of echo as well as asynch packets, or at one time only one mechanism needs to be active? Thanks again, Vishwas > Hello Vishwas, Nitin. > >> >> On 12/4/08 12:30 PM, "Vishwas Manral" wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > 1. I am a bit confused about using the same BFD destination port for >> > IPv4 and IPv6. Shouldn't we have different port numbers? I realized >> > that even RIP which uses UDP uses different ports for IPv4 and IPv6. >> > Using the same port can be an issue in a few heavily used OS. Has >> > anyone implemented BFD for IPv6? >> >> Using the same port should be for v4 & v6 should be fine. I >> know of at least >> 1 implementation ;-) >> >> Thanks >> Nitin >> > > I know of another implementation which same dest port is used for v4 & > v6 =) > >> 2. As BFD source port is not used for packet replies and as >> the Source address/ ifindex may be a unique identifier for a >> source, do we need not have the condition which states >> "source port number SHOULD be unique among all BFD sessions >> on the system". Can we downgrade this condition to a may? > > I tripped over this requirement as well, and I agree that measurement of > the > wording strength is a bit confusing. > > One soft correction on your statement is that source port MAY be used as > a > demultiplexing *aid*. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-08 Sec4.1: > > An implementation MAY use the UDP port source number to aid in > demultiplexing incoming BFD Control packets, but ultimately the > mechanisms in [BFD] MUST be used to demultiplex incoming packets to > the proper session. > > Thanx, > Nobo > From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 17:26:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D813A6986; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:26:22 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131E73A692E for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:26:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gj3D+wUMd3Nw for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:26:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9BB3A690E for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:26:19 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,723,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="207637306" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2008 01:26:15 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB61QFhP019752; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:26:15 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB61QFHt027764; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 01:26:15 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22c.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.47]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:26:15 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: BFD UDP ports Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:25:43 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <77ead0ec0812050939q837b20fh54105e245e7e0fb6@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BFD UDP ports Thread-Index: AclXAHscOGI0fpI6RW+3V+3v1Fv5EgAQFf7A References: <77ead0ec0812041230w6f9e0172i19eb8a08437fd023@mail.gmail.com> <77ead0ec0812050939q837b20fh54105e245e7e0fb6@mail.gmail.com> From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "Vishwas Manral" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2008 01:26:15.0148 (UTC) FILETIME=[A18AAAC0:01C95741] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3000; t=1228526775; x=1229390775; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=nobo@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Nobo=20Akiya=20(nobo)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20BFD=20UDP=20ports |Sender:=20; bh=fKkaGeSqH0n2tGJnYV4hhs7mstFKUC+8w5lkuXZkNHA=; b=qkngsdvC/snTpe1liOlCJRLkCt9pC20KQxsDyTUPZKLqkYD/3ouZCWD/WN sdCo500E8YELBXardXtdDnjqoggM4TKJUsI04T0EIxzcLgHdotcsnkGEaQQX CJhru+WdYWNxDpOXZrD260XRQm14gBjvFt7VbuYEk0axGMruX0a90=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=nobo@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, David Ward , Dave Katz X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Hello Vishwas. > Another question I had in mind was regarding the use of the=20 > "echo mode". Should we allow parallel sending of echo as well=20 > as asynch packets, or at one time only one mechanism needs to=20 > be active? In echo mode, async packets are alos needed to support prarameter changes. But the base draft Sec 6.4 suggests that the rate can be slower since echo packets are checking the liveliness. Thanx, Nobo > -----Original Message----- > From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 2:40 AM > To: Nobo Akiya (nobo) > Cc: Nitin Bahadur; David Ward; Dave Katz; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: Re: BFD UDP ports >=20 > Hi Nitin/ Nobo, >=20 > Thanks for your replies. So I guess we will have to use the=20 > same port for IPv4 and IPv6 then, hack the OS or whatever other way. >=20 > Nobo, I agree we should make the recomendation as a MAY=20 > instead of a may as I had suggested. >=20 > Another question I had in mind was regarding the use of the=20 > "echo mode". Should we allow parallel sending of echo as well=20 > as asynch packets, or at one time only one mechanism needs to=20 > be active? >=20 > Thanks again, > Vishwas >=20 > > Hello Vishwas, Nitin. > > > >> > >> On 12/4/08 12:30 PM, "Vishwas Manral"=20 > wrote: > >> > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > 1. I am a bit confused about using the same BFD destination port=20 > >> > for > >> > IPv4 and IPv6. Shouldn't we have different port numbers?=20 > I realized=20 > >> > that even RIP which uses UDP uses different ports for=20 > IPv4 and IPv6. > >> > Using the same port can be an issue in a few heavily=20 > used OS. Has=20 > >> > anyone implemented BFD for IPv6? > >> > >> Using the same port should be for v4 & v6 should be fine.=20 > I know of=20 > >> at least > >> 1 implementation ;-) > >> > >> Thanks > >> Nitin > >> > > > > I know of another implementation which same dest port is=20 > used for v4 & > > v6 =3D) > > > >> 2. As BFD source port is not used for packet replies and as the=20 > >> Source address/ ifindex may be a unique identifier for a=20 > source, do=20 > >> we need not have the condition which states "source port number=20 > >> SHOULD be unique among all BFD sessions on the system". Can we=20 > >> downgrade this condition to a may? > > > > I tripped over this requirement as well, and I agree that=20 > measurement=20 > > of the wording strength is a bit confusing. > > > > One soft correction on your statement is that source port=20 > MAY be used=20 > > as a demultiplexing *aid*. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-08 Sec4.1: > > > > An implementation MAY use the UDP port source number to aid in > > demultiplexing incoming BFD Control packets, but ultimately the > > mechanisms in [BFD] MUST be used to demultiplex incoming=20 > packets to > > the proper session. > > > > Thanx, > > Nobo > > >=20 From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 6 07:35:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665AD3A69F3; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:35:57 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47C83A69F3 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:35:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xakLN3Qgl5mf for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:35:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F133A6923 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:35:55 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,724,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="30242384" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2008 15:35:50 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB6FZolU023607; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:35:50 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB6FZoYw013476; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 15:35:50 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.52]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:35:50 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([171.68.225.134]) by xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:35:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <77ead0ec0812041230w6f9e0172i19eb8a08437fd023@mail.gmail.com> <77ead0ec0812050939q837b20fh54105e245e7e0fb6@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Ward Subject: Re: BFD UDP ports Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:35:48 -0600 To: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2008 15:35:50.0007 (UTC) FILETIME=[50ECE070:01C957B8] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3065; t=1228577750; x=1229441750; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dward@cisco.com; z=From:=20David=20Ward=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20BFD=20UDP=20ports |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Nobo=20Akiya=20(nobo)=22=20; bh=iOH+evHw8YPN3lXEtftzB8gIF6VHFp6ygu3PJM+xBEw=; b=AEICIw05dP8tKc0KPnlAKp5IckMjGqJRXPUNJBRz6j16/JMcsxzLPBDHpV l+EwAsx+SMy5AIrZ1Ci1Qz/wR7pSPbfjKu4cA8OXQ43XuZhLJBqyMKfEslM/ f3j1fAtkIZ; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=dward@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, David Ward , Dave Katz X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org See the description of the "control" session in echo mode. -DWard On Dec 5, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote: > > Hello Vishwas. > >> Another question I had in mind was regarding the use of the >> "echo mode". Should we allow parallel sending of echo as well >> as asynch packets, or at one time only one mechanism needs to >> be active? > > In echo mode, async packets are alos needed to support prarameter > changes. But the base draft Sec 6.4 suggests that the rate can be > slower since echo packets are checking the liveliness. > > Thanx, > Nobo > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 2:40 AM >> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo) >> Cc: Nitin Bahadur; David Ward; Dave Katz; rtg-bfd@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: BFD UDP ports >> >> Hi Nitin/ Nobo, >> >> Thanks for your replies. So I guess we will have to use the >> same port for IPv4 and IPv6 then, hack the OS or whatever other way. >> >> Nobo, I agree we should make the recomendation as a MAY >> instead of a may as I had suggested. >> >> Another question I had in mind was regarding the use of the >> "echo mode". Should we allow parallel sending of echo as well >> as asynch packets, or at one time only one mechanism needs to >> be active? >> >> Thanks again, >> Vishwas >> >>> Hello Vishwas, Nitin. >>> >>>> >>>> On 12/4/08 12:30 PM, "Vishwas Manral" >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> 1. I am a bit confused about using the same BFD destination port >>>>> for >>>>> IPv4 and IPv6. Shouldn't we have different port numbers? >> I realized >>>>> that even RIP which uses UDP uses different ports for >> IPv4 and IPv6. >>>>> Using the same port can be an issue in a few heavily >> used OS. Has >>>>> anyone implemented BFD for IPv6? >>>> >>>> Using the same port should be for v4 & v6 should be fine. >> I know of >>>> at least >>>> 1 implementation ;-) >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Nitin >>>> >>> >>> I know of another implementation which same dest port is >> used for v4 & >>> v6 =) >>> >>>> 2. As BFD source port is not used for packet replies and as the >>>> Source address/ ifindex may be a unique identifier for a >> source, do >>>> we need not have the condition which states "source port number >>>> SHOULD be unique among all BFD sessions on the system". Can we >>>> downgrade this condition to a may? >>> >>> I tripped over this requirement as well, and I agree that >> measurement >>> of the wording strength is a bit confusing. >>> >>> One soft correction on your statement is that source port >> MAY be used >>> as a demultiplexing *aid*. >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-08 Sec4.1: >>> >>> An implementation MAY use the UDP port source number to aid in >>> demultiplexing incoming BFD Control packets, but ultimately the >>> mechanisms in [BFD] MUST be used to demultiplex incoming >> packets to >>> the proper session. >>> >>> Thanx, >>> Nobo >>> >> From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 8 14:56:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22F03A68DE; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:56:37 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199E73A68DE for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:56:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mfa9hkGu-LE6 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:56:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (fk-out-0910.google.com [209.85.128.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DC23A6849 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:56:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so1428033fkq.5 for ; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:56:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=0JXY8F0OfwAvnriO1/XkydH8L5RUI3+LHoiUe+JoYxI=; b=b1In1VmDTLbEMOfAxA6OZEDRvwzcXXxp1su6WU3wE1AG4IhbbQfIUnhd0jEAFKUvBo GxSYyv6O9ktRQPz3mDBD6LRYOxpst8cPl0nT5D4WzZbDKMZfdsQEqx/3Z8x+iZVDcWan kxwVtQ8k1SsuFi5B25IEIAkNti61AiKi1pwNg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=sgL2rBTFjNCxED8JRLHgSU9h3c/ZF2MDGE7s/4jA6oZAS1V6f5HmDuDr2eZK52+kau 0xQgvFv+wrxApqAML7pvpIUx16JKHsptcNPGczxd3FwoOyFQxKGkZDIbAy7U0JhV93LY G74yPStEX0Z7ZskEBKpcxn+xd9WljtEOaQdTw= Received: by 10.181.135.5 with SMTP id m5mr1390669bkn.171.1228776989262; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:56:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.205.7 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:56:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <77ead0ec0812081456l7084d00aqcb5093c02129bee5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:56:29 -0800 From: "Vishwas Manral" To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, "David Ward" Subject: Poll sequence for Echo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The BFD base specification states that: If either bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval is changed or bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval is changed, a Poll Sequence MUST be initiated. Is there a reason it does not state the same for bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInterval? I think the Poll sequence needs to be required for this too. Thanks, Vishwas From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 8 22:18:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FF93A69CB; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:18:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AA33A69CB for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:17:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.410, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EaJcoC3zs905 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:17:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from bay0-omc2-s23.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc2-s23.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85C63A69BB for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:17:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from BAY117-W23 ([207.46.8.58]) by bay0-omc2-s23.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:17:24 -0800 Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [64.47.51.158] From: Satyam Sinha To: , , Subject: Re: Poll sequence for Echo Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:17:24 -0800 Importance: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 06:17:24.0537 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD592290:01C959C5] X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Hi Vishwas=2C =20 >From 6.8.3 (Timer manipulation): =20 If bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval is increased and bfd.SessionState is Up=2C the actual transmission interval used MUST NOT change until the Poll Sequence described above has terminated. This is to ensure that the remote system updates its Detection Time before the transmission interval increases. =20 If bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval is reduced and bfd.SessionState is Up=2C the previous value of bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval MUST be used when calculating the Detection Time for the remote system until the Poll Sequence described above has terminated. This is to ensure that the remote system is transmitting packets at the higher rate (and those packets are being received) prior to the Detection Time being reduced. =20 A poll sequence ensures graceful handling of parameter change on an already= established session by having a two way handshake. Without the poll seq. a= n established session can flap. =20 However=2C on changing the bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInterval=2C an invocation o= f poll seq. should not be mandatory as an acknowledgement from the peer is = not needed. The peer can be informed of the change as part of subsequent me= ssages. I don't think a "MUST" needs to apply to bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInter= val change.=20 =20 Regards=2C =20 Satyam =20 -----Original Message----- From: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Vishwas Manral Sent: Monday=2C December 08=2C 2008 2:56 PM To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org=3B David Ward Subject: Poll sequence for Echo Hi=2C The BFD base specification states that: If either bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval is changed or bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval is changed=2C a Poll Sequence MUST be initiated. Is there a reason it does not state the same for bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInter= val? I think the Poll sequence needs to be required for this too. Thanks=2C Vishwas _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web.=20 http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/= From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 8 22:24:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D823A3A6A7C; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:24:18 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34863A6A7C for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:24:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dyTSZ4DymJlN for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182513A6A6A for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:24:17 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,739,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="121735441" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2008 06:24:11 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB96OBXe009770; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:24:11 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB96OBgs029130; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:24:11 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22c.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.47]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:24:09 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Poll sequence for Echo Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:23:44 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <77ead0ec0812081456l7084d00aqcb5093c02129bee5@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Poll sequence for Echo Thread-Index: AclZiDlh6yqi27fqTMKfRTODGez+MQAOyMig References: <77ead0ec0812081456l7084d00aqcb5093c02129bee5@mail.gmail.com> From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "Vishwas Manral" , , "David Ward" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 06:24:09.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[BEE97F60:01C959C6] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1663; t=1228803851; x=1229667851; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=nobo@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Nobo=20Akiya=20(nobo)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Poll=20sequence=20for=20Echo |Sender:=20; bh=76o97noE2Mei6uXGhpP8muVOgegErcKYkcTbJO8z1ws=; b=PCJghcA55IHkeWTrTSwl15GUYUgGmEGlpvPtUiphNHLd7tRP4OcwQHVBvG GKw4cNtMRupUULUL+AHVE2aVIo+05cuWktZQtp21zPrGs1oXS6by/gomzYH6 tj3sUwBGDS; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=nobo@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Hello Vishwas. Good question. I must reply that whether Poll/Final sequence is needed for bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInterval is arguable. Change in bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInterval parameter of a session may trigger neighboring system to: 1) Change the echo packet transmission interval. 2) Failure detection interval, based on 1). Unlike bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval parameter, triggered changes, in terms of session behavior, are isolated to one system. Thus, Poll/Final sequence is not necessary. On the other hand, without Poll/Final sequence, a local system cannot know whether neighboring system has acknowledged the bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInterval change or not. With that said, IMHO, it's probably better not to use Poll/Final sequence when bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInterval changes. Main reason is that, we can avoid/ignore the corner case of: "What if a local system attempt to change the bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInterval value, but neighboring system does not ack (no final sent back)?". Thanx, Nobo > -----Original Message----- > From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:56 AM > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; David Ward > Cc: Nobo Akiya (nobo) > Subject: Poll sequence for Echo >=20 > Hi, >=20 > The BFD base specification states that: >=20 > If either bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval is changed or > bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval is changed, a Poll Sequence MUST be > initiated. >=20 > Is there a reason it does not state the same for=20 > bfd.RequiredMinEchoRxInterval? I think the Poll sequence=20 > needs to be required for this too. >=20 > Thanks, > Vishwas >=20 From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 24 05:31:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45283A691D; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:31:43 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F133A6864 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:27:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.019 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.203, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fYaWaCzxiFKN for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:27:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f21.google.com (mail-bw0-f21.google.com [209.85.218.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD0E3A679F for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:27:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so11585695bwz.13 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:27:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=0Vv//zvIeP2LNtAtlIzqa9PgCljfE3tsqwK6lPBm7uY=; b=ZOBzsEVaLZMRo1mxy+DGLMd3Dak5BI3OcmMYE4XomqECzJXK6gNldVe54ZG8T/pUGY NFMX/jpVyb/yqYmaZbwKHZcfww/zf5SS5gEH1RQFPWaseyT7/v5rn62O4qEtRJjLv8ny fv2po4itx4BnQZGQ16fwfF+0iW9dDXKjFunLU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=v+xP6Uua9foOpHza+7oILHIvAGNz7nv50WRW1rNbyObGrHUnfbc586/70g+gEuCOGP pyDZnMPO19CrKvVYSw8sMzN2rwyWJe04aL9yuKvFRQ6pef35XbOnuEH4zqzX0YcA5EcF KOxTP7bpLKSpISDB/5OlNEyTMicxMWclCPBkQ= Received: by 10.223.110.3 with SMTP id l3mr6141731fap.48.1230125240273; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.103.135 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:27:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <428f40220812240527i2b4637cey6e6afb7a0ff2bdca@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:57:20 +0530 From: "Vinodkumar Parasmal" To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: Reg status of draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_90686_21386474.1230125240268" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org ------=_Part_90686_21386474.1230125240268 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Draft draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07.txt has expired, is there a plan for further work/standardization ? ------=_Part_90686_21386474.1230125240268 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Draft draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07.txt has expired, is there a plan for further work/standardization ? ------=_Part_90686_21386474.1230125240268-- From rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 24 06:24:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9624F3A691D; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:24:00 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5E13A691D for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:23:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.324 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.324 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.725, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xe1IAnBk3ush for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:23:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (bantam.cisco.com [64.102.19.199]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843D73A682D for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:23:58 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBOENmmB001942; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:23:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [64.102.157.151] (dhcp-64-102-157-151.cisco.com [64.102.157.151]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBOENlTF001939; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:23:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <495245F3.5090803@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:23:47 -0500 From: Carlos Pignataro Organization: cisco Systems, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.18) Gecko/20081105 Thunderbird/2.0.0.18 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vinodkumar Parasmal Subject: Re: Reg status of draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07.txt References: <428f40220812240527i2b4637cey6e6afb7a0ff2bdca@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <428f40220812240527i2b4637cey6e6afb7a0ff2bdca@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 X-Face: *3w8NvnQ|kS~V{&{U}$?G9U9EJQ8p9)O[1[1F'1i>XIc$5FR!hdAIf5}'Xu-3`^Z']h0J* ccB'fl/XJYR[+,Z+jj`4%06nd'y9[ln&ScJT5S+O18e^ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org Vinodkumar, draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07.txt is approved: And waiting in the RFC-Editor Queue for references: Thanks, --Carlos. On 12/24/2008 8:27 AM, Vinodkumar Parasmal said the following: > Draft draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07.txt has expired, is there a plan for > further work/standardization ? -- --Carlos Pignataro, DSE, CISCO.