Hi Haibo, thank you for your expedient response. If I understand the scenario you're addressing, it is where a single PE with moderate resources is connected to a PE that acts as the edge device for the access network. To improve the quality of user experience, customer's PE is connected to a secondary PE that is used as a backup. You are concerned that maintaining two BFD sessions on the customer's PE might overload the resource-limited PE. But isn't that the PE that initiates S-BFD sessions toward two access network edge PEs in your draft? I think that the savings are on the side of these two PEs, not the subscriber's PE. Would you agree?
Regards, Greg On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:20 AM Wanghaibo (Rainsword) < rainsword.w...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Thanks for your comments. > > The scenario you pointed out is a 4PE scenario, but in our > solution, a large number of scenarios are based on 3PE. > > In a 3PE scenario, deploying BFD wastes resources. A large number of > single-homed PEs may be connected to the dual-homed PEs. The dual-homed PEs > may not have enough resources to create BFD sessions. > > > > Regards, > > Haibo > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 15, 2022 12:44 AM > *To:* Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.w...@huawei.com>; > draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discrimina...@ietf.org; BESS <bess@ietf.org>; > rtg-bfd WG <rtg-...@ietf.org> > *Subject:* A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator > > > > Hi Haibo and the Authors, > > thank you for updating the draft. I've read the new version and have a > question about the use case presented in the document. There are three PEs > with two of them providing redundant access to a CE. It appears that a more > general case would be if both CEs use redundant connections to the EVPN. > Asume, PE4 is added and connected to CE2. In that case, it seems reasonable > that each PE is monitoring remote PEs, i.e., PE1 monitors PE3 and PE4, PE2 > - PE3 and PE4, PE3 - PE1 and PE2, and PE4 - PE1 and PE2. So, now there are > pairs of S-BFD sessions between PEs connected to CE1 and CE2 respectively. > That seems like too many sessions and that number can be reduced if one > uses BFD instead of S-BFD. Would you agree? To simplify operations, it > might be helpful to use the technique described in > draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09>. In > the recent discussion of the draft on the BFD WG ML, the authors noted that > they are working on extending the scope to include the multi-hop BFD. > > Greatly appreciate your thoughts about the number of S-BFD sessions. > > > > Regards, > > Greg >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
