Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:47:35 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Common Interval Support in BFD
        Authors         : Nobo Akiya
                          Marc Binderberger
                          Greg Mirsky
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2014-06-11

Abstract:
   Some BFD implementations may be restricted to only support several
   interval values.  When such BFD implementations speak to each other,
   there is a possibility of two sides not being able to find a common
   interval value to run BFD sessions.

   This document defines a small set of interval values for BFD that we
   call "Common intervals", and recommends implementations to support
   the defined intervals.  This solves the problem of finding an
   interval value that both BFD speakers can support while allowing a
   simplified implementation as seen for hardware-based BFD.  It does
   not restrict an implementation from supporting more intervals in
   addition to the Common intervals.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-intervals/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Marc Binderberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:09:56 -0700

Hello BFD experts,

we have uploaded a new version of our draft draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-01. As 
you can see from the diff the changes are mainly a cleanup:

* typo found/fixed

* changed a MUST to SHOULD as this is an informal draft.

* removed appendix C, which was kind of a to-do list.

* realized in appendix B that in the last negotiation steps "B" does not need 
to send 1sec in the control packets. Instead 300msec is fine and also more 
aligned to the current behaviour described in RFC5880. In essence you don't 
start a new Poll sequence when the negotiated interval Max(remote, local) can 
be supported by your implementation.

As usual: feedback is welcome!

Thanks & Regards,
Marc

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:47:35 -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:40:40 -0400

Working Group,

This document is relatively stable.  At least a few vendors have reviewed it
to find out whether their implementations currently support the suggested
intervals.

We're likely to want to last call this document in the near future.  It
would greatly help this effort if you have an implementation of BFD to
review this document and see which of the intervals your implementation may
cover.

-- Jeff