Hi Jeff,
thank you for adding more details to the discussions before RFC 7130. We have
submitted another draft that proposes to use MPLS encapsulation of BFD control
packets over MC-LAG interfaces. Would greatly appreciate reviews, questions and
comments on
draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls-00>.
Regards,
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:24 AM
To: Greg Mirsky
Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman); [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Alia Atlas ([email protected]);
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces
Greg,
This is more of a general comment on discussions from the development from RFC
7130 than any specific comment on your draft.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:43:18AM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> yes, link local multicast may be used in MC-LAG scenario. The draft
> states that it MAY be used while the broadcast has SHOULD normative.
> But we are all open to the discussion.
During our discussions across multiple vendors, including some hardware
vendors, it was determined that attempts to exercise the layer 3 mechanisms
would vary significantly across implementations depending on how packets were
encapsulated. Multicast in particular provided some problematic issues for us
beyond the initial bootstrapping phase of LAG for BFD wherein we might not have
ARP completed.
My recommendation is to proceed with your drafts with similar caution. Try to
stay as true to pure IP as possible to best insure the L3 data paths are
exercised across implementations from various vendors.
-- Jeff (speaking as an individual contributor)
