Hi Xiao, please see inline
> On Mar 24, 2023, at 5:43 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jeff, > > > > Please see inline... > > Original > From: JeffTantsura <[email protected]> > To: 肖敏10093570; > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] > <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; > Date: 2023年03月24日 16:48 > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Can a BFD session change its source port to > facilitate auto recovery > That’s not going to fly, number of ECMP paths in today’s networks could be > anywhere between 2 and 500+, how many of these would you exercise, how would > you know that you have covered all of them? > > [XM]>>> The number of links/LAGs seems much higher than the number of ECMP > paths. If otherwise I have to run SH BFD on each link/LAG, why not try to run > MH BFD on each ECMP path? :-) As to the coverage, BFD+IOAM may help, because > IOAM can tell you the path BFD packet really takes. > [jeff] the number of p2p connections between 2 directly attached IP end-points is rarely larger than 32 (either LAG or ECMP), SH BFD sessions are distributed across the path traversed and coherency between IP connectivity matrix and BFD sessions between any given pair of directly connected IP end-points can easily be guaranteed, end2end (MH BFD) is between non directly attached end-points and is subject to network topology and routing, and has to be re-evaluated on any change. INT doesn’t really help here, hashing decisions are local, any changes (local or global) might change the hashing results, unless you build a full mesh of source routed paths… but then, why BFD at all, you could use INT only instead, take a look at HPCC draft > The role of MH BFD is to verify reachability between 2 non directly connected > IP end-points, not to monitor every path available. > > [XM]>>> IMHO BFD for SR Policy does care about the path, and some SP's > networks require bidirectional path consistency while employing BFD. > [jeff] how did we get to SR here? If you have got a strict source routed path, you only need to validate that path, if it is loose however, same issues > > Best Regards, > > Xiao Min > > > > As a viable solution, run SH BFD on each link/LAG, MH BFD end2end and make > sure your timers are aligned and not interact with each other in funny ways. > > Cheers, > Jeff > >> On Mar 24, 2023, at 09:26, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> Hi Abhinav, >> >> >> >> When I come across your problem, the first idea coming into my mind is not >> trying to change the source port for a BFD session, but to run multiple BFD >> sessions between the two peers, using each BFD session to monitor a >> respective ECMP path, and then the application would not be declared in >> failure unless all the BFD sessions go down. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Xiao Min >> >> >> > > From: AbhinavSrivastava <[email protected]> > To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>; > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; > Date: 2023年03月23日 22:27 > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Can a BFD session change its source port to > facilitate auto recovery > Agree that deletion and recreation (possibly automatically) by associated > protocol is a good alternative, instead of inbuilt BFD recovery. > > Thanks > Abhinav > > On Thu, 23 Mar, 2023, 3:08 am Alexander Vainshtein, > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Abhinav, Jeff and all, >> >> FWIW I concur with Jeff. >> >> >> In my experience, MH IP BFD sessions are typically used to monitor peering >> between iBGP neighbors, and when the MH IP BFD session goes down, BGP treats >> this as if its session has gone – and deletes the MH IP BFD session in >> question. >> >> >> I.e., fast recovery of such a session will not happen until BGP would not >> re-create it. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Sasha >> >> >> From: Rtg-bfd <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura >> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:27 AM >> To: Abhinav Srivastava <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Can a BFD session change its source port to >> facilitate auto recovery >> >> >> Abhinav, >> >> >> Let’s clarify a couple of points. >> >> What you are trying to do is to change entropy to change local hashing >> outcome, however for hashing to even be relevant there has to he either ECMP >> or LAG in the path to the destination otherwise shortest path will be he >> used regardless, so statistically, some of the flows between a given pair of >> end points (5 tuple) will be traversing the (partially)broken link, would >> you really like BFD to “pretend“ that everything is just fine? >> >> Moreover, by far, in case of congestion - most applications won’t change >> their ports but have their TX rate reduced. >> >> There’s work done by Tom Herbert for IPv6/TCP (kernel patch upstreamed a few >> years ago) - had beeb presented in RTGWG pre-Covid, that on RTO changes >> flow label value (that some might or might not include in hashing), which is >> strongly not recommended to be used outside of a tightly controlled >> homogenous environment (think within DC). >> >> Outside of what BFD spec tells us (don’t), the above should provide enough >> motivation not to do this. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 23, 2023, at 05:44, Abhinav Srivastava <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Multi-hop BFD would be the mechanism that detects the failure on the path it >> happens to be using for the session. I wasn't thinking of another mechanism. >> Detection timer expiry would be the trigger for recovery which could be >> augmented with few other possible criteria like how long session hasn't been >> able to come back up or prolonged flapping. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Abhinav >> >> >> On Wed, 22 Mar, 2023, 3:05 pm Greg Mirsky, <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Abhinav, >> >> thank you for presenting an interesting scenario for a discussion. I have >> several questions to better understand it: >> >> · How the network failure that triggers the recovery process is >> detected? >> >> · If the failure detection mechanism is not multi-hop BFD, what is the >> relationship between the detection intervals of heat mechanism and the >> multi-hop BFD session? >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 4:36 PM Abhinav Srivastava <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> I needed clarification around whether source port can be changed for a BFD >> session in case of multi hop BFD. The ability to change BFD source port >> when BFD session goes down helps BFD session to recover if its stuck on a >> network path where there is some intermittent but significant packet loss. >> >> >> In such cases, normally without BFD, end to end application traffic would >> eventually settle down on a good path as applications typically change >> source port after experiencing disconnection or failures. But if BFD is >> being used to monitor some part of a path which is experiencing significant >> but not 100% packet loss, it will start causing next hop list of associated >> static route or the associated BGP sessions to start flapping forever, as >> BFD packets would be stuck to that partial lossy path forever (until BFD >> session is deleted and recreated by admin action). This may also hinder the >> typical application recovery strategy of changing source port on failure. >> >> >> Ability to dynamically change BFD source port can help BFD recover in such >> cases. Is this something that is allowed as per RFC? The RFC5881, section >> 4 (for single hop) case states that – >> >> “The source port MUST be in the range 49152 through 65535. The same UDP >> source port number MUST be used for all BFD Control packets associated with >> a particular session” >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Abhinav >> >> >> Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of >> Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or >> proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, >> disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express >> permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, >> please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including >> any attachments. > >
