I agree with Matthew.
Note that ZTE has also implemented S-BFD for SR Policy (both SR-MPLS and SRv6).
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: MatthewBocci(Nokia) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>;Ketan Talaulikar
<ketant.i...@gmail.com>;
Cc: spring <spring@ietf.org>;spring-cha...@ietf.org <spring-cha...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年04月01日 01:23
Subject: Re: [spring] Pending work items on draft-ietf-spring-bfd
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Hi Greg
I see S-BFD as the most prevalent flavour of BFD for monitoring SR Policies,
avoiding the need for LSP Ping bootstrapping. Nokia has an implementation for
both MPLS and SRv6 SR Policies, and I am aware of others out there.
Given the widespread implementation of S-BFD for SR Policy, it would make sense
to incorporate S-BFD as a mechanism in the SPRING BFD draft.
Regards
Matthew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky
<gregimir...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 3:19:47 AM
To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com>
Cc: spring <spring@ietf.org>; spring-cha...@ietf.org <spring-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Pending work items on draft-ietf-spring-bfd
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See http://nok.it/ext for additional information.
Hi Ketan,thank you for sharing your comments about the state of
draft-ietf-spring-bfd. Please find my notes in-line below under the GIM>> tag.
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:11 AM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg/Authors,
I believe this draft still needs work before it is ready for WGLC.
Specifically, it does not cover the use of S-BFD for the monitoring of SR
Policies and AFAIK this is the more widely used than the mechanism specified in
the draft currently (i.e. than the bootstrap via LSP Ping to setup a "normal"
BFD session).
GIM>> Can you clarify how BFD or S-BFD can monitor an SR Policy? As defined in
RFC 5880, the scope of BFD is:
a protocol intended to detect faults in the
bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including
interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding
engines themselves, with potentially very low latency.
At the same time, I believe that an SR policy can be monitored using LSP Ping
with the corresponding Target FEC.
I am not saying that the mechanism in the draft cannot be used, but progressing
this document toward publication without reflecting the other alternate
mechanism that IMO is far more widely implemented and deployed will provide a
somewhat misleading picture.
My request to the authors is to consider inclusion of text from
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy/ in this WG
document. We can discuss f2f during this week if you agree.
GIM>> Thank you for your suggestion. Let us discuss the applicability of a
BFD-based mechanism in monitoring an SR policy.
I would like us to seek inputs from implementers and operators on which of
these two mechanisms they prefer/use. Including this in the document would also
be helpful.
GIM>> I wholeheartedly agree and welcome anyone to share their experiences of
monitoring SR policies with MPLS OAM tools.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:04 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote:
Refresh and to update author's contact information.
Dear All,
the draft is stable and the authors believe it is ready for the WG LC. We
appreciate the WG Chairs' consideration for starting the WG LC.
Regards,
Greg (on behalf of the authors)
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <internet-dra...@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:00 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt
To: Mach Chen (Guoyi) <mach.c...@huawei.com>, Greg Mirsky
<gregimir...@gmail.com>, Ilya Varlashkin <i...@google.com>, Jeff Tantsura
<jefftant.i...@gmail.com>, Jiang Wenying <jiangweny...@chinamobile.com>
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt
has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-spring-bfd
Revision: 06
Title: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing
Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
Document date: 2023-03-27
Group: spring
Pages: 14
URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/
Html: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.html
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-bfd
Diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06
Abstract:
Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source
routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is
encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is encoded
as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is
expected to monitor any existing path between systems. This document
defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD
session, control an SR Policy in the reverse direction of the SR-MPLS
tunnel, and applicability of BFD Demand mode in the SR-MPLS domain.
Also, the document describes the use of BFD Echo with BFD Control
packet payload.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
