Fair enough. Perhaps stating this in the draft may be helpful. Ashesh
From: Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]> Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 7:41 PM To: Ashesh Mishra <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Alia Atlas ([email protected])" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces Hi Ashesh, as in RFC 7130, each BFD session on an interface is independent. The BFD state change may be available to LACP and/or LAG manager in the node. LAG state coordination is outside of scope but I speculate that one can use ICCP. Regards, Greg From: Ashesh Mishra [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 3:36 PM To: Gregory Mirsky; Jeffrey Haas Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Alia Atlas ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces Authors, Quick note on both drafts. They do not indicate how the BFD state is coordinated across the MC-LAG. Node B Node A | Node C If one member link between A and B fails, how is the info propagated to BFD on node C? Does the system rely on LACP? Regards, Ashesh From: Rtg-bfd <[email protected]> on behalf of Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]> Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 7:31 PM To: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Alia Atlas ([email protected])" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces Hi Jeff, we have not expected this question that early J Yes, there¹s IPR associated with these drafts that would be properly disclosed after the meeting. Regards, Greg From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 3:23 PM To: Gregory Mirsky Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alia Atlas ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces Working Group, These documents reasonably extend the existing BFD on LAG mechanism and would be reasonably in charter for BFD to pick up. Greg, given that adoption seems a reasonable course, could you and the other co-authors state whether there's any known IPR on these documents? -- Jeff > On Apr 4, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dear All, > > two new drafts, related to RFC 7130, were published before the meeting: > > · BFD on MC-LAG interfaces in IP network > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-00> > > · BFD on MC-LAG interfaces in IP/MPLS network > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls-00> > > > > Greatly appreciate your reviews, comments, questions and suggestions. > > > > Regards, > > Greg
