Hi Reshad,
Thanks for your comments first.
|Authors, in section 3.1 3rd paragraph, last sentence, I'm not sure I fully
understand. Instead of |having 2 S-BFD sessions on PE3 (as initiator) to PE1
and PE2 (the responders), how are you merging |this into 1 single session?
[Haibo]: There may be a misinterpretation of the description here. Here we want
to say, for PE3 (as initiator) and PE1 (as the responder)，there may be some
SBFD sessions used to detect the VPNSID. For this case, we may merged them to
an SBFD session used to detect the PE3’s locator.
|Also, I think the document would be clearer if the terms initiator and
responder (as per RFC7880) are |used in the document.
[Haibo]: We will modified it in the next version.
Regards,
Haibo
From: Reshad Rahman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 10:36 AM
To: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; BESS <[email protected]>; rtg-bfd WG
<[email protected]>; Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator
Hi Greg, authors,
Greg, is your point is that instead of having a pair of S-BFD sessions between
2 PEs, we can have 1 (traditional) BFD session between 2 PEs? In general I
agree that S-BFD is better suited when only 1 side needs to perform continuity
tests.
Authors, in section 3.1 3rd paragraph, last sentence, I'm not sure I fully
understand. Instead of having 2 S-BFD sessions on PE3 (as initiator) to PE1 and
PE2 (the responders), how are you merging this into 1 single session?
Also, I think the document would be clearer if the terms initiator and
responder (as per RFC7880) are used in the document.
Regards,
Reshad.
On Monday, March 14, 2022, 12:44:55 PM EDT, Greg Mirsky
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Haibo and the Authors,
thank you for updating the draft. I've read the new version and have a question
about the use case presented in the document. There are three PEs with two of
them providing redundant access to a CE. It appears that a more general case
would be if both CEs use redundant connections to the EVPN. Asume, PE4 is added
and connected to CE2. In that case, it seems reasonable that each PE is
monitoring remote PEs, i.e., PE1 monitors PE3 and PE4, PE2 - PE3 and PE4, PE3 -
PE1 and PE2, and PE4 - PE1 and PE2. So, now there are pairs of S-BFD sessions
between PEs connected to CE1 and CE2 respectively. That seems like too many
sessions and that number can be reduced if one uses BFD instead of S-BFD. Would
you agree? To simplify operations, it might be helpful to use the technique
described in
draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09>.
In the recent discussion of the draft on the BFD WG ML, the authors noted that
they are working on extending the scope to include the multi-hop BFD.
Greatly appreciate your thoughts about the number of S-BFD sessions.
Regards,
Greg
