[bess] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01.txt

[Greg Mirsky]

Dear All,
the draft considers use of p2mp BFD, a.k.a. BFD for multipoint networks, to
MPLS network. One of use cases - monitoring p2mp MPLS LSP to distribute
EVPN BUM traffic.

Appreciate your comments, questions, suggestions.

Regards,
Greg

-- Forwarded message --
From: 
Date: Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:18 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01.txt
To: Gregory Mirsky 



A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:   draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
Revision:   01
Title:  BFD for Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS
LSP
Document date:  2017-06-28
Group:  Individual Submission
Pages:  6
URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-
bfd-01.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd/
Htmlized:   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01
Htmlized:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-
p2mp-bfd-01
Diff:   https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-
bfd-01

Abstract:
   This document describes procedures for using Bidirectional Forwarding
   Detection (BFD) for multipoint networks to detect data plane failures
   in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) point-to-multipoint (p2mp)
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  It also describes applicability of out-
   band solutions to bootstrap a BFD session in this environment.




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.

The IETF Secretariat
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [mpls] Closed -- Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis

[Lou Berger]

Hi,

I know this is a late comment, but feel free to view it as an early
IETF LC comment if you wish:-)

Section 5  seems to catalogue a fair number of options and allows for
incompatible implementations:

   These differences in the behavior of different implementations may
   result in unexpected behavior or lack of interoperability.  In some
   cases, it may be difficult or impossible to achieve the desired
   policies with certain implementations or combinations of
   implementations.

It would be really nice to have something (or some combination) at least
recommended to be implemented to ensure interoperability.  Do you think
it's possible to define such a recommendation, or do we just punt?
(Surely there is a defacto default/minimal mode already in the market!)

Thanks,
Lou

On 5/11/2017 12:45 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> I have now posted draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt, which I believe 
> addresses the LC comments.
>
> ___
> mpls mailing list
> m...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess