Hi, Alia, Thanks, and sounds good. This is what we have implemented, which should address both:
@@ -122,9 +122,9 @@
The BFD Echo port defined by [RFC5881], port 3785, is used for the
S-BFD Echo function on IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS environments.
SBFDInitiator sessions MUST transmit S-BFD echo packets with
- destination port 3785. This document defines only the UDP port value
- for the S-BFD Echo function. The source port and the procedures for
- the S-BFD Echo function are outside the scope of this document.
+ destination port 3785. The setting of the UDP source port [RFC5881]
+ and the procedures [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base] for the S-BFD Echo
+ function are outside the scope of this document.
4. S-BFD Control Packet Demultiplexing
@@ -138,13 +138,13 @@
S-BFDReflector), then the packet MUST be looked up to locate a
corresponding SBFDReflector session based on the value from the "your
discriminator" field in the table describing S-BFD discriminators.
- If the port is not 7784, then the packet MUST be looked up to locate
- a corresponding SBFDInitiator session or classical BFD session based
- on the value from the "your discriminator" field in the table
- describing BFD discriminators. If the located session is an
- SBFDInitiator, then the destination IP address of the packet SHOULD
- be validated to be for self. If the packet is a classical BFD
- session, then the procedures from [RFC5880] apply.
+ If the port is not 7784, but the packet is demultiplexed to be for an
+ SBFDInitiator, then the packet MUST be looked up to locate a
+ corresponding SBFDInitiator session based on the value from the "your
+ discriminator" field in the table describing BFD discriminators. In
+ that case, then the destination IP address of the packet SHOULD be
+ validated to be for itself. If the packet demultiplexes to a
+ classical BFD session, then the procedures from [RFC5880] apply.
5. Initiator Procedures
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@
Thanks,
— Carlos.
> On May 3, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi Alia,
>
> Thanks for the review and for these! Please see inline.
>
> > On May 2, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip/
> > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip/>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I think that these are both simple fast issues to resolve.
> >
> > 1) Sec 3: "This document defines only the UDP port value
> > for the S-BFD Echo function. The source port and the procedures for
> > the S-BFD Echo function are outside the scope of this document."
> > Please add a reference to the S-BFD base document for defining where the
> > procedures are found.
> >
> > Where, precisely, is the source port defined? It wasn't in the S-BFD
> > base
> > document. This seems like a hole. Can you please clarify?
>
> This is done exactly as in RFC 5881, purposefully. I can add a clarifying
> sentence like:
>
> OLD:
> This document defines only the UDP port value
> for the S-BFD Echo function. The source port and the procedures for
> the S-BFD Echo function are outside the scope of this document.
>
> NEW:
> S-BFD echo follows the BFD echo definitions of [RFC 5881].
> Consequently, this document defines only the UDP port value
> for the S-BFD Echo function; the source port and the procedures for
> the S-BFD Echo function are outside the scope of this document.
>
> How about a reference by the source port to [RFC 5881] and a reference
> for the procedures for the S-BFD Echo function [draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base]?
>
> What wasn't clear to me - not having recently read RFC 5881 in detail - was
> that the UDP source port was defined in RFC 5881. I knew the procedures were
> in draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base.
>
> >
> > 2) Sec 4: " If the port is not 7784, then the packet MUST be looked up
> > to locate
> > a corresponding SBFDInitiator session or classical BFD session based
> > on the value from the "your discriminator" field in the table
> > describing BFD discriminators. "
> >
> > I assume that you mean that UDP source port is used to look up the
> > appropriate receiver.
> > If that receiver handles BFD and S-BFD packets, then the "your
> > discriminator" field is used
> > to identify the BFD session. PLEASE clarify that because this reads as
> > if BFD is the only
> > application that uses UDP.
> >
>
> Indeed, very much so. I suggest:
>
> OLD:
> If the port is not 7784, then the packet MUST be looked up to locate
> a corresponding SBFDInitiator session or classical BFD session based
> on the value from the "your discriminator" field in the table
> describing BFD discriminators. If the located session is an
> SBFDInitiator, then the destination IP address of the packet SHOULD
> be validated to be for self. If the packet is a classical BFD
> session, then the procedures from [RFC5880] apply.
>
> NEW:
> If the port is not 7784, but the packet is demultiplexed to be for an
> SBFDInitiator, then the packet MUST be looked up to locate
> a corresponding SBFDInitiator session based
> on the value from the "your discriminator" field in the table
> describing BFD discriminators. In that case,
> then the destination IP address of the packet SHOULD
> be validated to be for itself. If the packet demultiplexes to a classical
> BFD
> session, then the procedures from [RFC5880] apply.
>
> Would that work?
>
> Sure - sounds good. Thanks,
> Alia
>
> Thanks,
>
> — Carlos.
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
