Hi Haibo, thank you for your detailed response to my question. I agree that drafts address different use cases. I also have several questions about the use cases presented in draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator:
- As I understand the case presented in Figure 1, PE3 uses S-BFD to monitor interdomain SRv6 tunnels to PE1 and PE2 respectively. I couldn't find discussion of how reflected BFD packets reach PE3. I hope you can clarify that for me. - Also to the case in Figure 1, do you envision also establishing S-BFD sessions from PE1 and PE2 to PE3? - The use case presented in Figure 2 seems to be within a single domain. If that is the case, wouldn't advertising S-BFD discriminators via IGP achieve the goal? I greatly appreciate it if you can clarify these questions for me. Regards, Greg On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:24 PM Wanghaibo (Rainsword) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > Thanks for you comments. > > I have read the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions/>. > The problems and scenarios he's trying to solve are different from the way > we use them. > > The extension of the bgp-ls-sbfd-extension is to report the information > collected by IS-IS/OSPF to the controller. The controller collects the > information and delivers configurations to devices based on service > requirements. > > For example, the SBFD session is configured between PEs based on this > descriminator. > > > > In our solution, service routes are used to directly establish S-BFD > sessions, and no controller coordination is required, simplifying > deployment in some scenarios. > > The two scenarios are oriented to different scenarios. > > The bgp-ls-sbfd-extension solution mainly used for reports information. > Therefore, only the information carried by IS-IS/OSPF needs to be reported. > Therefore, the current extension is sufficient. > > As our draft needs to be service-driven. In our scenarios, intermediate > routers may change nexthops. To ensure service consistency, nexthop > information needs to be added to verify S-BFD the creation of redundant > S-BFD sessions. > > > > Regards, > > Haibo > > > > *From:* BESS [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* Friday, October 29, 2021 3:54 AM > *To:* [email protected]; BESS <[email protected]>; > idr wg <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [bess] A question to the Authors of > draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator > > > > Dear Authors, > > thank you for bringing your work to the BESS WG. I've read the draft and > couldn't find a reference to the IDR WG draft that, as it seems to me, > addresses the same problem - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions/>. > Could you take a look at the IDR draft and share your thoughts? Do you find > that anything is missing in the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions? > > > > > > Regards, > > Greg >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
