Reshad/Jeff: Hi! Thanks for chiming in!
>From your replies, I'm not sure if you think the BFD WG should have been involved more, or if you agree that it may be better to have a general purpose attribute like this one developed in BFD, or if you are ok with the current work. ?? With your bfd-chair hat, of course. Thanks! Alvaro. On December 17, 2020 at 10:52:50 AM, Reshad Rahman wrote: > On 2020-12-16 4:21 p.m., Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:09:54PM -0800, Alvaro Retana wrote: > > > (2b) The fact that BFD monitoring can be achieved without the new > > > attribute makes me think that the bootstrapping of BFD using BGP would > > > be better served in a document produced by the BFD WG. One of the > > > editors has expressed the same opinion [1] [2]. Has a discussion taken > > > place in the BFD WG (or at least with the Chairs) about this work? Why > > > was it not taken up there? > > ... > > > > > I will not speak for Reshad, but I don't recall this issue. I may simply > > be forgetting the e-mail brought to the list, if so. > > I tried to dig this up and here's the summarized history: > > There was some discussion right after IETF96 (I was at the BESS meeting): > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/-D0iRI2aMSD9tkMWGObsmKGiXow/ > > Greg did bring this draft to the attention of the BFD WG in 2018 but there > was no discussion: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/wQOhY6p9L3Z7f29VpNx_yRsCTZg/ > > AFAIK BFD WG wasn't involved in WGLC. > > Note that draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bfd reuses the mechanism for signaling BFD > discriminator. > > Regards, > > Reshad. > > > > The meta desire here is that communication of the BFD Discriminator for > > p2mp sessions requires protocol help - in this case BGP. While this could > > also be discovered via provisioning, that would limit the flexibility of > > the deployment of this feature. > > > > For this specific internet-draft's purpose, dissemination of the > > Discriminator is tightly scoped. The fact that this happens under an AFI/ > > SAFI that is not expected to hit general purpose Internet routes limits > > the blast radius of its use. However, as you note, Alvaro, there may be > > more general purpose desire to use this attribute for. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
