Thanks again all for recommendations and background information.
With regards to RFC 7130:
> Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
> Interfaces
Actually, I was thinking about a group size of one ("whereas the normal LAG is
> 1") to emulate BFD over a single physical Ethernet link, - something like a
dedicated "BFD-over-LAG protocol profile".
However, didn't investigate so far the overhead.
Regards,
Albrecht
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>
Sent: 12 June 2019 16:16
To: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <[email protected]>; [email protected];
Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
Jeffrey,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
I tend to agree with your statement that " IETF doesn't have a useful OAM
model".
But I would add that, in spite of that, IETF has a rich set of OAM tools that
are widely deployed and serve the real needs of the IETF community reasonably
well, and from time to time adds to this set when new issues are identified.
Whether a useful OAM model is really needed in his situation, or not, is, IMHO,
a matter of personal preferences.
"If it is not broken we don't fix it".
My 2c,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 12:23 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>
Cc: Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <[email protected]>; [email protected];
Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 12:45:50PM +0000, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> To the best of my recollection the BFD WG hss tried to cooperate with IEEE
> 802.1, but these attempts have failed.
I think that's a mis-characterization.
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
Interfaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7130
IEEE wasn't really interested in having BFD running native. Much of this has
to do with the OAM and layering models that IEEE has for Ethernet.
And yet, IETF was getting push to solve at least a problem relating to layer 3
issues for traffic balancing over LAGs. That was somewhat out of the realm of
IEEE.
So, while it took us a while to frame the problem, we eventually found a place
where we were able to solve our respective problems without stepping too much
on organizational and layer-wise boundaries.
> At the same time I think there is a difference in the overall attitude with
> regard to OAM between IETF and IEEE 802.1.
I think I would state this as "IETF doesn't have a useful OAM model". Many
people would prefer us to have one, and see BFD as a useful component for it.
However, that's bigger work than just BFD.
-- Jeff
___________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information
which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have
received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax,
and then delete the original and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________
