+1

Reshad (as individual contributor).

From: Rtg-bfd <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on 
behalf of Ashesh Mishra 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 6:44 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeffrey Haas 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
 "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Alia Atlas 
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces

Fair enough. Perhaps stating this in  the draft may be helpful.

-
Ashesh

From: Gregory Mirsky 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 7:41 PM
To: Ashesh Mishra 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeffrey Haas 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
 "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Alia Atlas 
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>;
 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Alia Atlas 
([email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> on 
behalf of Gregory Mirsky 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 7:31 PM
To: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
 "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Alia Atlas 
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces

Hi Jeff,
we have not expected this question that early :)
Yes, there's 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]<mailto:[email protected]>; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Alia Atlas 
([email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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

Reply via email to